Commons Sitting of 1 March 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  LANCASHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL (BY ORDER).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  *MR. MACDONA (): It will be in the recollection of the House that when this Bill was brought in last year* a number of Members, myself among them, voted against it because, although its object was good, electric power was asked to pass through districts without the leave of the local authorities. But that ground of objection has been removed in the Bill which is now before us by the
  *See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series]. Vol lxvii p 1181 9Discussion on Second Reading of the General Power Distributing company Bill, 3rd March, 1899.)
  1374
  insertion of a special clause ensuring that local districts shall not be traversed without the leave in writing of the local authorities. I am, therefore, utterly amazed that the Bill should be opposed on the present occasion, as I understand it is to be. It is an unusual departure from the procedure of the House that private Bills should be so opposed on the Second Reading stage. The Select, Hybrid, or other Committees should first deal with such matters. This is a Bill to promote an extraordinary extension of trade and commerce, and in the interests of the commerce of the country it should be carefully considered by the House. Last week* a Bill of exactly the same purport—I refer to the North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill—was read a second time, and referred to a Committee upstairs, and we ask that the same advantage should be extended to this measure. There is a feeling in the country that the municipalities are organising themselves into a gigantic monopoly with a view to strangling private enterprise in regard to the supply of electricity at the moment of its birth. Now, such a scheme ought to meet with very little sympathy at our hands. There is also a feeling in the country that fair play has not been accorded to private commercial enterprise in this matter in its competition with the municipalities, and, therefore, I do hope and trust that the House will take into its own hands the protection of these interests, that it will give a Second Reading to this Hill, and that it will allow any fancied objectionable provisions in it to be reported upon by a Committee upstairs competent to deal with it, and rectify any clauses necessary. Surely such a course will commend itself to a House which has so often shown itself jealous of any attempt to infringe its rights and privileges. I have to complain to the House of an attack upon its privileges by a member of the Corporation of Liverpool. An alderman of the City of Liverpool has threatened Members for Lancashire who fail to vote against this Bill that they may run the risk of being kicked out at the next election. That is a threat not worthy to be used by any member of so excellent a Corporation as that of Liverpool, nor is it one that should be directed against any Members
  *February 19th. (see page 355 of this Volume.)

  1375
  of this honourable House by any representative of the Corporation of Liverpool.
  MR. GALLOWAY (): Who made the threat?
  *MR. MACDONA: Alderman Petrie. This Bill deals with a vast subject, and if it is carried it will enable electrical power to be supplied in bulk to local authorities who may wish to have it, enabling them, however, to distribute it in any manner they desire in the district over which they have control. And as it is a fact that many small districts would not care to incur the great expense of generating their own electric power, I think this will be an enormous advantage to them and encourage local effort in many country and suburban districts where municipal electric power may not be available— hence its vast importance to our agricultural interests where every year machinery is more and more coming into operation. It will, too, be a great assistance in developing commercial interests in many localities hitherto unexploited, and so encourage our undeveloped resources. I think it would he disastrous if this House were to prevent people who want this electric power having the opportunity of obtaining it in the manner proposed in this Bill. Remember that we in this country originated the use of electric power. For that we are indebted to British scientists; but on account of the hampering and handicapping restrictions, and the miserable subterfuges to which it has hitherto been subjected, we are far behind Germany, France, and America in the development of the use of electric power. Indeed, in many villages on the American continent, the inhabitants enjoy advantages which are still withheld from residents in our great manufacturing centres. This should not be allowed to go on any longer. Why, even at our own doors we find an instance of the result of these hampering restrictions, for the proposal to run the trains on the underground railway by electric power cannot be given prompt effect to because of the entire inability of our home engineers to make the machinery and appliances necessary for the purpose. We have, therefore, to await the convenience of America and Germany for the completion of the large orders for machinery which we have had to send
  1376
  out to them. This company is not claiming a monopoly, it rather seeks to destroy a monopoly. In matters like this I hold it is desirable that we should put a stop to municipal authorities holding a monopoly, as they desire to have in this case, and that we should secure fair play for all. I therefore support the Second Reading of this Bill, because it differs essentially in principle from the General Power Distribution Bill of last session, which I opposed, in that it does not propose to interfere in the slightest degree with any local authority, whether municipal, urban, or rural, in regard to the exclusive right to supply their own constituents with electrical energy. Nor does it propose to confer upon the company anything in the shape of a monopoly. The principle of the Bill is very clear and simple. It proposes to establish large generating stations on certain defined sites alongside or with canal access to large collieries, and outside any municipal area, where electricity can be manufactured wholesale at the lowest possible cost, and distributed through trunk mains throughout the area of supply, for sale in bulk to any local authority that may think fit to purchase ready-made electricity from the company instead of having their own generating station, and retail the electricity to their own constituents in such manner and at such prices as they may think fit. Section 36 of the Bill expressly prohibits the company from supplying electricity to any but the local authority, or a company already authorised by Parliament, except by consent of the local authority. Some of the smaller local authorities may prefer to allow the company to undertake the local distribution and supply in their district, but in such case they have the right of purchase of the local undertaking under Sections 2 and 3 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1888. Section 38 compels the company to sell a supply of electricity to any local authority within the area that demands it, and, as a necessary corollary to this, the company asks power to pass their mains through any intervening district to reach the district requiring a supply, which is the only compulsory power sought. The maximum prices the company are allowed to charge any local authority are fixed by the second schedule at 1d. per Board of Trade unit after the first 400 hours in any quarter, 2d. per unit for the second 200 hours, and 4d.

  1377
  for the first 200 hours supply, and slightly higher rates, namely, 1½d., 3d., and 5d. where the company undertake the local supply with the consent of the local authority. Section 43 provides that after the company has earned a profit of 10 per cent. all further profit shall be shared with the consumers, so that the concern then becomes a co-operative one, and it is to the joint interest of consumers and company alike to reach the profit-sharing stage as soon as possible. Such being the provisions of this Bill, I feel that I can most heartily support it, as it meets all the objections I myself felt to the Bill of last session, and all the objections urged by hon. Members who spoke against that Bill, fulfilling all their conditions and requirements. No local authority is obliged to take the company's electricity— they are free to take it or leave it as they think fit, and the company cannot sell electricity in any quantity, large or small, to a single individual without their consent. The power to pass through one district to reach another that wants a supply is a fair and reasonable one. What right has any local authority to act the dog-in-the-manger and deny this power, as though they were the absolute owners of that portion of England! What would Manchester have clone if any local authority along their 108 miles of pipe line from Thirlmere had been free to say, "No, you shan't have your water supply, for we stop the way—go round by some other route, if you can." They might as well go a step further, and prevent a cart or carriage passing through. 1, therefore, confidently appeal to the hon. Members for Battersea, Bethnal Green, Huddersfield, and others with whom I was in agreement as regards the Bill of last session, to support the Second Reading of this Bill, and even to the hon. Member for South-West Manchester to withdraw his opposition, based, as I believe it to be, upon the misrepresentations that have been issued broadcast by the municipal authorities. And now, Sir, I would draw attention to the unfair and questionable methods that have been resorted to by the authorities opposing this Bill. In the first place they have attempted to mislead the Members of this House as to the character of this Bill, trusting, apparently, to catch the votes of hon. Members who have not had
  1378
  time to study the Bill themselves. I will first read Section 36, which says—
  "(1) Except for the purpose of obtaining convenient access to some general supply district or to some local authority requiring a supply of energy, or some company authorised by Provisional Order or Act of Parliament to distribute energy within the area of supply, the company shall not, exercise any of the powers of the principal Act in reference to any street within any district not forming part of a general supply district without the consent in writing of the local authority under seal."
  A "general supply" district, I should explain, is defined to mean a district where the local authority has consented to the company undertaking the distribution and supply to the inhabitants. It is hardly conceivable that in the face of that clause the petitions lodged against the Bill assert that the powers sought by the Bill "would enable the company to compete with your petitioners, and that the right to supply electrical energy within their district should be reserved to them, and that no powers for that purpose should be conferred on the promoters." The promoters do not ask for any such powers, but it is slily insinuated that they do in the 9th and 14th Clauses of the Petition of the Stretford Urban Council, which is a type of a group of ten petitions presented by a group of authorities, mostly under the influence of Manchester and Salford, and represented by one solicitor, who has been active in getting up this opposition. Sir, there are 98 urban and rural districts within the area of the Bill, the great majority of which are in favour of the principle of this Bill. At a meeting held in Manchester on February 13th, the following resolution was passed by 35 councils represented at the meeting—
  "That this meeting of Urban District Councils desires to oppose the Lancashire Electric Power Bill, 1900, for the purpose of obtaining protective clauses, and that a Committee he appointed to formulate and carry out such opposition, and that the cost he home pro rata., according to rateable value."
  And the Chairman, in proposing the resolution, said—
  "that they, as local authorities, did not so much oppose the passing of the Bill, but they did insist, if it were passed, that their local interests should he adequately safeguarded."
  Now to return to the Stretford petition. In Clause 5 they allege that—
  "the inhabitants of their district will be injuriously affected by the Bill."

  1379
  but they do not show in what way. In Clause 7 they say that—
  "the question of supplying their district is now under consideration."
  I believe, Sir, they are in negotiation with the Borough of Salford for a supply —and I would ask, Would it not be clearly to their advantage in their treaty with Salford to have alternative offers from this company, and how could this "injuriously affect" the inhabitants? Is it not clear from this that the kind of competition objected to by the large towns is not competition within their own areas (which the Bill enables them to prevent), but competition in the supply to outside townships? In Clause 15 they object to "public inconvenience" caused by breaking open roads, etc. Surely it must be obvious that this cannot be an objection to the Bill, as the roads must be opened by someone if the public are to have an electrical supply at all, whether by the company, by Salford, or by Stretford themselves, and it is simply an attempt to hoodwink Parliament to put this forward as a special disability attached to the proposals of this Bill. In Clause 11 they raise the bugbear of electrolytic corrosion of gas and water pipes, owing to leakages arising from the high pressure in our mains. Now this is deliberately deceiving the House, for they know that the Board of Trade rules require the insulation to be of a strength proportionate to the pressure, and that there are stringent regulations as to leakages. I am assured by experts that there are hardly any cases of electrolysis except from the uninsulated rail return on electric tramways. The most recent case is that of the Manchester Corporation cables, which have been so badly managed and so defective that considerable leakages have occurred and caused some damage to underground pipes. The high pressure has nothing to do with electrolysis, which in all cases has been caused by low-tension currents. We also have a statement in the shape of a manifesto issued by the municipal corporations, which is intentionally misleading. They give a list of thirty-two towns, in twenty-seven of which they say that "works have been established," in the hope, no doubt, that hon. Members;may accept that statement, and let it pass without examining too closely into the list given on the last page of the document. They lay stress upon the large amount
  1380
  of capital totalled up on these various works, spent and proposed to be spent, as a proof that they are doing their duty. Why, Sir, it is part of our case that the policy of each community providing its own supply involves an extravagantly large expenditure of capital owing to want of system, cohesion, and central control—and not only extravagant capital outlay, but also extravagant working costs owing to the absence of that cooperative principle which governs our scheme, averaging our load, and enabling one horse power to be so handled as to do duty for perhaps four or five horse power in the present desultory and misdirected fashion. But not satisfied with attempting to deceive this House, the opponents of the scheme have actually gone the length, as I have stated, of dictating to Members of this House the course they must take on the question, and threatening us with Parliamentary extinction if we do not "do as we are bid." "Pressure" is to be brought to bear upon all Members of Parliament to vote against the Bill, which, being interpreted, means that we are to be cajoled, coerced, browbeaten, and bullied into voting against it; and those who resist this system of dictation are, according to Alderman Potrie, of Liverpool, to be kicked out at the next election. The hon. Member for S. W. Manchester. Mr. Galloway, charges me with inconsistency in advocating this Bill, when I voted against the Bill of the County of London and Brush Electric Lighting Company. Sir, I voted against that Bill because, in my opinion, it would have tended to complicate the re-formation scheme of the districts affected which is now in progress, and I considered it better to wait until this re-formation was completed. The Lancashire Bill is on totally different lines. Under it, the company cannot sell a single pennyworth of electricity in any district without the consent of the local authority. The company's scheme would enable every authority in the area to draw upon the great sources of power contained in the central coalfield of Lancashire in the concentrated and portable form of electricity, and we only ask that no governing body who might not care to avail themselves of this privilege, should have power to say to others who do want it, "No, you shan't draw upon this central source of power, for we block the way and

  1381
  won't allow it to pass to you." There is not the slightest resemblance between the two Bills, inasmuch as the County of London and Brush Bill offered no advantage to the public in the supply of cheaper electricity, while the Lancashire Bill does offer considerable public advantages. Alderman Petrie has no ground for assuming that the electors will do his bidding in this matter. The question of electrical supply has never yet been made a test one at any election, and if it were, it is not at all impossible that Alderman Petrie might find himself in the position to which he proposes to relegate hon. Members who venture to have opinions of their own, and presume to differ from him. I submit, Sir, that the manifestoes and statements issued to hon. Members by the municipal corporations and the very few urban councils who have thrown their lot in with them are entirely and intentionally misleading and altogether misrepresent the nature of this Bill. They are so framed as to deceive and mislead this House, and have been accompanied by suggestions and even undisguised threats of evil consequences to Members who dare to oppose the will of the municipalities that almost amount to breach of privilege. They are also replete with technical objections which I am assured by experts are entirely wrong and misleading. It is impossible to deal adequately with all these matters in a Second Beading debate. They are essentially matters for a committee to deal with. The allegations can be thoroughly sifted in Committee, and if there is any truth in them, the Bill can be rejected on the Third Reading, I therefore appeal to hon. Members not to allow themselves to be bullied and bounced and threatened fey the big corporations into rejecting the Second Reading, but to allow this Bill to go into Committee in order that the statements of the promoters and opponents may be properly tested and examined, before we entirely close the door against a system being introduced into this country which has undoubtedly proved an immense boon to other countries where it has been adopted. Out of ninety-eight urban and rural councils only twenty-seven have lodged petitions chiefly with the object of obtaining protective clauses, all the others being in favour of the Bill. It is approved by the Lancashire County Council, by nearly all the urban and rural
  1382
  councils that are not under the direct influence of Manchester and Salford, by the Chamber of Commerce of the county, by the Wigan Coal and Iron Company, whose interests extend over every part of the district, and many other large and important bodies, and ought not to be rejected without further inquiry.
  MR. GALLOWAY: I rise for the purpose of moving that this Bill be read a second time this day six months, and although my task has been made somewhat easy by the speech which has just been delivered, I fear I shall have to detain the House some time by going into one or two matters in detail—matters of which I think it should be placed in possession before it comes to a decision. My hon. friend has referred to a Bill which passed its Second Reading a few days ago —the North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill—and I at once frankly own that that was due to a mistake for which I am to a certain extent responsible. But I would point out that that Bill differed from this in so far as it applied to a purely agricultural area, and not to a number of municipal corporations. But my right hon. friend omitted to point out that the Brush Electric Power Bill was on Monday last rejected by this House* solely on the point now raised—namely, the crossing of streets without the consent of the local authority. I hope this Bill will be similarly dealt with. My hon. friend referred to the Bill of last session. But it will be in the recollection of the House that that was defeated under somewhat peculiar circumstances, for after certain assurances given by the hon. Member for Macclesfield, who was in charge of the Bill, I myself moved the adjournment of the debate to enable the matter to be further considered, but the House refused the adjournment, and rejected the Bill. What is it that the promoters of this Bill seek? They propose to lay hands on the whole of Lancashire south of the Ribble. That area, as represented by its local authorities, is wholly averse to the principle of the Bill. At an important conference of the boroughs of Lancashire held on the 23rd of February at the Town Hall, Manchester, it was resolved to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, and the grounds upon which opposition was decided upon seem to me to be of a most
  *See page 1070 of thid volume.

  1383
  weighty character. The House must I remember that the boroughs represented at that meeting spoke on behalf of an aggregate population of upwards of three millions and represented a rateable value of fourteen millions sterling. On the broad ground of public policy I hold that where Parliament has authorised a municipal corporation to borrow money for municipal undertakings on the security of the rates, and the corporation has established its undertaking, special Parliamentary powers ought not, in the interest of the community, to be granted to private persons trading for profit to execute works of a similar character within the borough with out the consent of the Council. [Cries of "Why not?"] At any rate, that is the policy which was embodied in the Electric Lighting Acts which were consolidated in the Act of last session, and I venture to think that if the ratepayers' money has been expended under the belief and assurance that there will not be competition from outside within their own area, this House has no right to come down and reverse that policy unless more weighty reasons are produced than have been in the past. Nor can I see how any advantage can arise from giving Parliamentary sanction to any private enterprise which at the very outset promises to enter into competition with the various corporations affected by its provisions. Those who are supporting this Bill do not suggest that the municipalities have not done their duty in regard to electric lighting. It is, indeed, the fact that no fewer than nineteen of the Lancashire boroughs have established electrical supply undertakings, and that municipal capital amounting to upwards of four millions has been or is in process of being expended on electrical appliances. That merely shows that the municipalities have not been backward in doing the work which it is their proper province to do. Another point of supreme importance is that the Bill asks for power to upset the Tramways Act of 1870, as well as the Electric Acts of 1882 and 1888, as consolidated in 1899. Under those Acts no private company has power to cross the corporation tramways without the sanction of the local authority; but if this Bill should unfortunately pass the House that sanction would be done away with, and at a word the policy which has been fixed for the whole country by successive Acts of Parliament would be
  1384
  reversed. I think I can show that great injury might be done to municipalities, and, in consequence, to the ratepayers, by such action. But before doing that I should like to quote the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who last year, speaking on the General Powers Bill, said it seemed to be a direct attack on the rights, privileges, and duties of municipal corporations, and added that it was not wise to pass a Bill which set aside the existing law.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): That is a most garbled report of what I said, and I think the quotation is most unjustifiable. That Bill not only took power to go through the streets, but also to distribute light and electric power throughout the municipal area. My statement referred to that, and when the hon. Member for Macclesfield withdrew that part of the Bill, I said he had met my objection and that I would support the Second Reading.
  MR. GALLOWAY: Of course, I apologise if I have in any way misrepresented what the right hon. Gentleman said. I maintain that if this House is, at the request of a private company, to override the whole of the Acts which have regulated corporations in years gone by, there will be no security for any municipality or any public body in this respect. In Manchester, and in all large municipalities, this question of the streets is a very serious one. The streets are full of various appliances for the benefit of the ratepayers —gas mains, water mains, hydraulic mains, sewers and telegraphs. The fact of these running underneath the streets makes it almost impossible at the present time for large corporations to find space in which to lay down mains for their own electrical purposes. If they have found difficulty in doing that, I venture to submit that it will be practically impossible for them to do it for any private company. The great point about it is that by the company taking these compulsory powers by Act of Parliament the corporations themselves will not derive one penny of profit or any advantage whatever from this breaking up of their streets. Another consideration is this. Assuming this House allows these companies to pass through a large town to supply consumers on the other side of the town, how are we to

  1385
  deal with the question of responsibility? Supposing an explosion takes place, and much damage is done, at the present moment the corporations are themselves liable. But if this Bill is passed, how are they possibly to decide who is to be responsible and answerable for such damage? It is a scientific fact that the explosion may not take place where the damage is actually done; it may be hundreds of yards away, and it would be impossible to say which of the mains was responsible. All these electrical works are at present in the hands of the corporations, and if any accident takes place they are compelled to take upon themselves the responsibility; there is no question of litigation, and no dispute can arise upon the point. The promoters of this Bill have made a great argument of the question of cost. They say that they can produce more cheaply, and that the municipalities cannot supply either light or power at anything like the same price. They quote the instance of America. But in America almost the entire bulk of the power is obtained by hydraulic means— from water and not from coal; therefore, while in America you may have a case like the Niagara Falls, where you can get a great power for practically nothing, it is an entirely different thing in this country, where you have to use coal, the price of which must affect the price of the electricity. There is one other point in regard to price. Under the Corporations Acts for the supply of electricity the corporations themselves are allowed to make only 5 per cent. on their undertaking; after that the price must be reduced to the consumer, and the 5 per cent. which they make goes to the relief of the rates. In Manchester and Liverpool as much as £10,000 or £15,000 has gone to the relief of the rates in this way. But what do this company propose to do? They propose to take 10 per cent. first of all for their own profits, and that 10 per cent. is a cumulative 10 per cent.; so that if for three years the company did not make a dividend they would be entitled in the next year to make 30 per cent and another 10 per cent for the year before the price could come down to the consumer. How they can profess to supply more cheaply than a corporation I fail to see. There is another point upon which this company have been extremely cute. They ask that after they have made 10 per cent., and they
  1386
  have reduced the price to the consume by 5 per cent., they should be allowed to make another I per cent. themselves How does that work out? Take the price as 5d. per unit. If the company reduce the price by ¼d. they can then make 11 per cent., and so on. How such a scheme is going to benefit the ratepayers or the communities who require electricity I entirely fail to see. I should like to say one word with regard to the speech which my hon. friend alleged was made by Alderman Petrie at the meeting at Manchester to which I have referred. I am authorised to state that the account as issued in the green pamphlet of the promoters of this Bill is an absolutely incorrect and inaccurate statement of what Alderman Petrie said. He did not make use of any words which could be construed in the sense which my hon. friend has thought fit to put upon them. We shall be asked to send this Bill to a Committee, but I desire the House to pause before they put the corporations to the expense, to say nothing of the inconvenience, of opposing this Bill. The expense and time taken by such a course will be very considerable, and unless it can be shown that some great public purpose will be performed by this Bill I submit that this House ought not to put the corporations to that expense and trouble. We have had private companies supplying this country before. There is the instance of London private companies' supply, which is as hopeless a failure as any private companies' supply of electric light in the world. I ask this House seriously to consider, before they hand over to the tender mercies of these private companies the electric light consumers and ratepayers of this country, the injustice they will be doing to the great municipalities who have done their work well in years gone by. It is for that reason I ask with every confidence that the House will follow the precedent set in the case of the General Powers Bill, and reject this proposal.
  SIR J. T. WOODHOUSE (), in seconding the Amendment, said he would not have felt justified in interposing in the debate had it not been that the Bill raised a very important and serious question of principle, which alone justified the House in debating the Bill at Second Reading, and determining whether it

  1387
  should be rejected or not. The promoters of the measure were not a public authority seeking public rights at the hands of the House of Commons, but a body of private speculators, primarily desirous of pecuniary gain, but presenting their case as one of public policy and as satisfying a great and pressing public demand. The question the House had primarily to determine was whether a public case had been made out for this Bill. He respectfully submitted it had not. Was there anything in this proposal or in the situation to justify the House in reversing the whole spirit of legislation which had animated it for a great number of years past? Up to the present, no Bill for the supply of electricity had been able to be obtained without the consent of the local authorities concerned. The legislation enacted in 1882 and 1888 provided that legislative powers should be sought by Provisional Orders with the consent of the local authority. It was true that an appeal might be made to the Board of Trade, but he believed that in no case—certainly in very few cases, and those in very exceptional circumstances—had the Board of Trade gone against the local authorities. The onus was upon the hon. Member for Rotherhithe and his friends to show that the general law of the land, well considered and well directed by Parliament, should be set aside in favour of a Bill promoted by private speculators. What was the pith of the case which they had endeavoured to make out? It was that the local authorities in the district on which they sought to lay their hands, of eleven thousand square miles south of the Ribble, had not discharged their duties, and that the private speculators with a million capital could discharge the public duty more efficiently and more economically than the local authorities. They had had experience as between private companies and local authorities of the supply of electric energy, and he would give one instance in Lancashire. Liverpool had been supplied with electric energy by means of a private company. The municipality determined to buy that company. They bought it, as municipalities and public authorities always bought when they dealt with public rights obtained by private companies, at great cost. And what were the facts? That electric light as supplied by that company was supplied
  1388
  at 6d. or 7½d. per unit, and at 4d. or 5d. per unit for power. Since the municipality had acquired that company, although they had doubled the capital they had reduced that 7½d. to 4d., and the 4d. to a 1d., and after providing for depreciation and sinking fund had made a profit of £8,000. He submitted that under these circumstances the suggestion that a private company could beat a municipality in cheapness and efficiency required a lot of making out. It was a well-known fact that similarly Sheffield, Birmingham, and Leeds had transferred their powers from private companies to municipalities. Manchester was a very large municipality, and was surely entitled to have its views weighed in the House. Manchester was not only supplying its own citizens, but also the surrounding localities, who were taking their part in the expenditure, and they were doing that at 1¼d. per unit, and he defied any company to do it cheaper or more economically. It was being done at a saving to the ratepayers of £26,000 a year. Anyone who had studied the Bill must feel that the Bill was promoted to compel local authorities sooner or later to buy out the promoters of the Bill and to put a pecuniary profit into their hands. But whilst they asked for the right to supply power, there was not a word in the Bill to compel them to supply that power. Therefore, whilst they had control under this Bill of 11,000 square miles, they could, although they might not exercise the power, keep other people from exercising it. It had hitherto been the practice of Parliament to permit municipalities and local authorities to control the area within which their authority existed. Under this Bill it was proposed to permit a right of way, say, for instance, right across the area of Manchester, without the consent of the municipality of Manchester. Those who knew the position of affairs in our great cities knew that the streets were so crowded with gas mains, water mains, hydraulic mains, and telephone cables, that the municipalities did not know how to make provision for other things. Why had the municipalities gone in for these things in our large cities? In order that they might keep the control of their own streets, and in order that companies might not come in and break up the streets at their own pleasure. The Bill empowered a private

  1389
  body of men to go right through the streets of our great cities, whether the corporation liked it or not, and to pay nothing for it. That was a principle which the House had hitherto most assiduously objected to, and it was because it violated the principle uniformly accepted that he respectfully asked the House to reject the Bill. An attempt had been made to import much prejudice into the opposition of the municipalities. But who were the municipalities? They were the representatives, and were elected in the same way as Members of the House of Commons, and it was in their name, on their behalf, and as a united body that he appealed to the House to reject the Bill.
  Amendment proposed,
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Galloray.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  *MR. SETON-KARR ()said he rose for the purpose of strongly supporting the Bill. He had not the slightest personal interest in it except that he was a Member of the House, a member of a large industrial constituency which the Bill affected, and also a British citizen interested in the industrial progress of the country. The London Chamber of Commerce and all the other chambers of commerce were strongly in favour of the Bill. His hon. friend who moved the rejection had called attention to two similar Bills, one of which had been rejected and the other passed by the House quite recently, and in alluding to the Bill which had been passed he said it had been passed by mistake. What his hon. friend meant to say was that the municipalities by mistake omitted to instruct the House of Commons to oppose that Bill. Were they to understand that the House could not go right on a matter of this kind without instructions from the municipalities? He most respectfully dissented from that. It had been said that no public case had been made out for this Bill. He would endeavour to make out that case, and if he did not succeed it would be his fault rather than that of the Bill. The Bill proposed to generate electricity in bulk and supply it to a large area at very much lower rates that those at which it could now be produced. The area affected by the Bill embraced the whole of Lanca
  1390
  shire south of the Kibble, containing altogether 129 local authorities and 182 townships, the bulk of the districts having a population not exceeding 10,000 each. Of these local authorities only sixteen had electricity works in operation, supplying electricity on a small scale at high charges to a fraction of the inhabitants. Twenty-two districts had Provisional Orders, but had taken absolutely no action, although some of the Orders were no less than ten years old. In 91 districts no attempt whatever had been made to obtain Orders or to carry out works, and this year there was not one application for a Provisional Order within the area proposed to be taken by this company. If the public were to wait for the action of these local authorities in order to be supplied with a growing necessity of the age they might wait until the Day of Judgment. The previous speaker had spoken contemptuously of private speculators. What had municipal corporations ever done to promote large industrial undertakings? Railways had been built and factories erected by private speculators, and the same class had founded and carried on the prosperity of the country. The supply of electricity in bulk was far too large a question for municipal corporations. The practical difficulties in the way were too great. Local authorities could not afford to sink large sums of the ratepayers' money in large installations of electrical plant, nor ought they to undertake with that money the risks which were inseparable from the initiation of an enterprise of the kind. Those risks were properly incurred by people described as private speculators. Political considerations also were involved. But in order to make such an enterprise pay it was necessary to generate and distribute electricity over a large area. Speaking generally, it was not possible for any one of the 129 districts affected by the Bill to generate cheaply its own electricity. The measure had been very seriously misrepresented. It proposed to have two or three large generating stations in the heart of the colliery district, where, by getting cheap fuel, it would be possible to manufacture the electricity in bulk far more cheaply than if the company were restricted in the site of their plant. There would also be far fewer establishment expenses than if each of the 129 districts had a separate station. A very important

  1391
  point was that by distributing over a large area the maximum and the minimum demands were very much more uniform, with the result that a large enterprise could afford to sell more cheaply than where the maximum and the minimum demands were restricted to fewer hours per day. In a large central establishment there would be a demand for power by day and for light at night, so that the machinery would be working probably for about twenty hours out of the twenty-four, instead of four or five hours, as was generally the case in an ordinary municipal plant. This was not a question of theory, but of fact. In the case of Cardiff, a 12 50 horse-power plant was necessary in order to supply a maximum short demand of 80 horse-power. America was 100 years ahead of this country in the question of electricity. From the city of Detroit one could travel for twenty miles round the city for ten cents on an electric tramcar at the rate of twenty miles an hour. There was the great electrical plant at Niagara, distributing electrical energy for a radius of about forty miles. All this was done by private enterprise, with the result that these districts and others like them in America had improved enormously with regard to industrial enterprise and general prosperity. Large consumers there were charged ¼d. per unit for their electricity, while the average to all consumers was ½d. per unit, while in Manchester 5d. per unit was charged for lighting, 1½d. per unit for power, and 2d. for the public lighting. The average amount charged by private enterprise in America, Germany, and Switzerland was one-third the lowest English price, and yet the Manchester Corporation were using the money of the ratepayers to oppose the introduction of somewhat similar terms in this country. There wore no compulsory powers sought in the Bill, except that of going through a non-consenting district in order to reach a consenting district on the other side. That objection had been run for just about as much as it was worth. Somebody must tear up the streets if the public were to have cheap electricity, and the power was safeguarded in the Bill to an extreme point. The non-consenting district could prescribe the route, or the could do the work in their own way and make the company pay for it. Was it reasonable, if a district desired to obtain
  1392
  cheap electricity from a central authority, that it should be deprived of that advantage because a non-consenting district declined to have its streets torn up? If the spread of cheap electricity was to be opposed in this manner the people of England might as well give up all idea of any improvement in the country's commercial prosperity. The promoters were prepared to accept any form of words to safeguard the local authorities to the greatest possible extent, and the scale of charges was fixed in the Bill. As to the amount of dividend, this was a question of supplying electricity cheaply, and if the promoters did not succeed their object had failed. If, however, they succeeded, surely no one would grudge them anything up to 10 per cent. All profits over 10 per cent. were to be shared with the consumers. If safeguarding clauses wore introduced— and they had been introduced—there would be no objection to the principle of the Bill on the part of many of the local authorities. [The hon. Member here read several letters to this effect.] The municipal corporations in their opposition to the Bill did not, in his opinion, represent public opinion in their districts. They represented merely themselves and their officials, and he thought they were very misguided in their opposition. The promoters of the Bill had received a letter from a solicitor representing the Preston county council to the effect that if certain clauses protecting the property of the county were inserted the council would not press its opposition. All that the local authorities wanted were protective clauses. He would wish to call attention to the work which the Manchester Corporation, who were leading the opposition to the Bill, were doing in connection with the supplying of electricity. They obtained their order ten years ago, and up to last March they had only supplied 2,570 customers out of a population of 500,000. They had lately made contracts to supply the adjoining districts, and they were in this dilemma: if they were to succeed in maintaining their monopoly of the supply of electricity they would at their present rate of progress either have to supply these outside districts and keep their own customers waiting or they would have to supply their own area and neglect the outside districts. The hon. Member who seconded the rejection of

  1393
  the Bill stated that the cost of production in Manchester was 1¼d. per unit. His information, however, was that it was 1½d., but that figure excluded the three important items of depreciation, sinking fund, and interest on loans. These three items represented another 1½d., making the cost per unit 3d. He did not suppose that the hon. Member had any intention of misleading the House, but to state that 1¼d. was the cost per unit was very misleading indeed.
  SIR J. T. WOODHOUSEasked if the hon. Member suggested that 1¼d. was not correct.
  *MR. SETON-KARR: Certainly.
  SIR J. T. WOODHOUSEsaid he had his information from the chairman of the Manchester Electric Lighting Committee, who, be thought, would not make an inaccurate statement, and who stated that the profits amounted to £26,000 after charging 1¼d. per unit.
  *MR. SETON-KARRsaid the hon. Member had left out half the story. He had omitted the three important items of depreciation, sinking fund, and interest on loans on the debit side of the account. On a commercial basis the cost was 3d. per unit when these items were taken into account. Manchester supplied its large customers at about half the price charged to small customers. Such a system could not be commercially sound, and he submitted that the Corporation perpetrated— he used the word in no offensive sense— a fraud on the small customers because they had to pay the difference between the two charges. The corporation of Manchester were using the money of the ratepayers—in perfect good faith, no doubt from their own point of view—to perpetrate a system which was really putting a bounty on their electric supply. He ventured to think that the opposition to the Bill was really opposition on the part of those who were in favour of municipal trading as against private enterprise. He was one of those who were hostile to municipal trading except within certain limits. He considered it a principle most dangerous to the prosperity of this country that municipalities should be allowed to go outside their proper province. They might just as well try to regulate railways or factories as try to
  1394
  stop the development of electrical production. They had done nothing to promote it in the past, they would do nothing in the future, and it should be left to private enterprise. He thought that the House would now understand why he, the representative of a Lancashire borough, was strongly supporting the Bill, and he was not afraid of his action as far as his constituents were concerned. He had unlimited faith in their intelligence. In conclusion he would remind the House of the enormous advantage of cheap electricity to the country. They could seldom take up a paper without reading of an accident caused by a paraffin lamp, but with cheap electricity all over the country those accidents would be avoided. Again, manufacturers would have a wider choice in the selection of sites for factories, which was now restricted by the proximity of coal mines, railway facilities and other reasons. But with electricity cheaply transferred they would have a wider area to select from. Further, manufacturers would save a considerable part of the money now spent on coal. He believed that in the case of long-distance freight 75 per cent. of that money was spent on carriage alone. The railways did not want the coal traffic; they would prefer to carry manufactured goods produced by electricity. Finally, he put it to the Labour Members of the House the hon. Members who said they represented the working men of the country—a statement he did not accept—that the question was of enormous importance to the working classes, who were at present handicapped by the severe competition of America and the Continent. where they enjoyed the advantages of cheap electrical power. He earnestly trusted the House would pass the Second Beading. The principle of the Bill was of enormous importance to the country, and to its industrial prosperity, and the opposition to it on the part of municipalities did not represent public opinion or public interest, at any rate in his part of the country.
  MR. BROADHURST ()said he would remind the hon. Member who had just spoken that the Mayor and Corporation of the town he represented were strongly opposed to the Bill he was supporting, and while he accepted the hon. Member as the representative of political opinion in St. Helens, he would prefer the opinion of the mayor and

  1395
  corporation on municipal matters. The point involved in the Bill was very simple and did not need elaborate arguments. The broad principle underlying the Bill was that it could prevent a small community supplying its own electric power. A more selfish proposal had never been made to the House. It also practically proposed to repeal the provisions of the Act of 1882. Electric lighting was in its infancy, but in the near future many urban authorities, who at the present time had not had the opportunity, would naturally wish to supply their own electricity. The Bill is not a philanthropic measure, but the venture of a body of private persons for the sake of gain. It was a sort of Chartered Company scheme by which the promoters saw a grand opportunity to obtain certain rights which at present belong to other people, and if the Bill were to be passed the small municipalities of the country would be handed over to the hands of persons whose only idea was to accumulate vast fortunes out of the necessities of the people. Under these circumstances, he strongly opposed the Bill. He contended that Parliament had no right to hand over powers such as were asked for by the promoters to any public company, the only object of which was to make profits for its shareholders, and he urged the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to consider the matter from the point of view now suggested. If he did, he would infallibly come to the conclusion that it was absolutely necessary to protect the rights of the community at large.
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT(Monmouthshire, W.): Before the President of the Board of Trade addresses the House, I would ask leave to offer some observations to his consideration which apply to the whole of this group of Bills. I do not in the least intend to express an opinion as to Lancashire's interest,in which I have no right to intervene, but I think that the House must be aware that in dealing with all these Bills it is dealing with a very great question. It is not a question of one part of the country or another. I do not altogether share my hon. friend's objections to great enterprises being carried on through private sources. That was a question which occupied fifty or sixty years ago the attention of this country, and that was at the time of
  1396
  the commencement of the great railway interest. That question was decided by the wisdom of the great statesman Sir Robert Peel. We know that Sir Robert Peel was much attacked at that time for throwing the railway enterprise of this country into private hands, and not adopting the system so largely followed on the Continent. I look forward to this question of electricity and electric supply as the great question of the future, and it is from that point of view that I wish to refer to the subject. If this company is prepared upon proper conditions to supply electricity to any part of the country, I am not opposed to that. No man can say to-day what part electricity may not play in the industry of the country, and that is a point which the House of Commons should keep in view. But what are the conditions which ought to be imposed? What was the policy which was pursued with regard to the railway companies? Parliament did not leave it altogether to particular promoters of Bills. Parliament did not leave it to the discretion of individual committees. They placed the whole of that great enterprise, upon which more than a thousand millions of private money has been expended, greatly to the benefit of the country—a sum larger than the National Debt, and now paying interest at least of 4 per cent., and one of the greatest investments for the savings of the country—under general legislation. I think that a model which we ought to follow in this instance. But what was the method which Parliament in those days adopted in dealing with the railways? They did not allow particular promoters to take their chance in individual committees. They placed the whole of that great enterprise, as I have said, under general legislation; that was carried out by the Land Clauses Act and the Railway Clauses Act. I approve of that course. If you have a company coming and proposing matters of this kind, in my opinion you ought very carefully to consider the matter, and not to compromise a great question like this without full consideration. You ought to have some principle laid down which should govern all cases which cannot be left to the decision of Private Bill Committees. I have a great respect for Committees. In former days I had some experience of Private Bill Committees, and I would like to say that in dealing

  1397
  with a question of this kind it ought not to be left to the decision of a particular Private Bill Committee except under those safeguards to which all railway promoters are liable. The hon. Member who has spoken, with the ability he always shows, in support of this proposal, referred to the giving of the electric light to rural districts. I wish one of these companies would come into Hampshire and light the villages and my own house with electricity at a penny farthing, or whatever the price is to be. If that were done I should be delighted. But I do not feel absolute security. I have read a pamphlet in which it was stated that the promoters would go into places which had already an electric supply, provided that the company did not supply electricity, except to wholesale consumers, within the district of any local authority already authorised by a Provisional Order or Act of Parliament to furnish such a supply. They would go in and take the plums out of the pudding and leave the currants. They said that they reserved the right to deal directly in the case of a trader using a large quantity of electricity, and that it was in the public interest to do so, and, further, they gave to the local authority in every case the duty of carrying the mains.
  MR. SETON-KARR: That does not apply to the Bill now before the House.
  MR. RITCHIE: I think the right hon. Gentleman is referring to some other Bill, probably the South Wales Bill.
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not desire to speak on any particular Bill. I wish to speak on the general conditions, and that is why I referred to the Lands Clauses Bill. There should be in every Bill a condition that where a district is passed through, especially when whole counties are token, it should be obligatory to give a supply wherever it is demanded. That is a condition which ought not to be left to the discretion of a Private Bill Committee. There ought to be general conditions applying to all Bills, as was the case with reference to the railway interest. There ought also to be a condition that the money to be supplied should be sufficient for the purpose for which it is taken. If you find a condition in a private Bill such as obviously cannot, under any circumstances, meet the wants of the district covered by the Bill, of
  1398
  course it will mean that the most favourable part of the district will be taken, and on which the money will be expended. I do not wish to refer particularly to any other Bill, but if you take the control for five years over two counties, and if all you are obliged to expend in five years is £50,000, you hang up the whole enterprise of that district during that period, while, in fact, the money you are obliged to spend would be only sufficient for one big town. That is an example of why it is necessary that you should have conditions which are general applying to all Bills, on the principle on which you acted in reference to the railway interest of the country. Why, I ask, are these Bills brought forward as private Bills, independently of the general legislation which already exists? In the Act passed by Parliament upon this subject there is a condition that no company shall come unless with the consent of the local district. That is the Act of 1888. The consent of the local authority is required for a Provisional Order. If, therefore, the promoters had come for a Provisional Order under the general law, as, in my opinion, they ought to have done, they would have been obliged to consult the interests of the local authorities. That is the general law, and it does not apply only to places already supplied with electricity, but to places which are not supplied with electricity. That being so, this is amethod of evading the general law which Parliament has passed in order to send to a Committee upstairs a Bill promoting a private enterprise which may defeat this provision of the general law. I do not think that is a wise course to take; it is contrary to public policy, and to the policy which has been hitherto pursued. The great railway interest, which is certainly as important as this interest, is governed, so far as the principles to be applied are concerned, by general legislation. I am quite sure that this matter has not been sufficiently matured and considered. I say most emphatically that I am not against the principle of this or any of the Bills of a like nature. I think there is room and great necessity for the employment of capital in this country, which at present receives a very low rate of interest, and a great deal of which goes abroad and is lost. I am, therefore, not arguing in favour of diminishing the employment of capital in this country; still less am I against the principle of

  1399
  giving such a supply us that of electricity to all the cottages and villages in England. But I should like to have some security that when the capital is supplied the cottages will get the light. I am not speaking at this moment so much in the interests of the great towns, which may look after themselves, or the great manufactures, which have the means of supplying themselves; but if these great monopolies are to be granted—and this is a gigantic monopoly—let them he beneficial monopolies governed by the general law and by a mature policy considered by Parliament. I have endeavoured to speak not upon any particular Bill, but upon the policy which ought to govern all the legislation in reference to this great industry. I think it would be a very good thing if these Bills were not proceeded with this year, but were brought forward next year after there has been time for the Government to consider those matters. We ought not to send these Bills—which, after all, will establish precedents governing the future —haphazard to Private Bill Committees; we ought to take a wide and statesmanlike view of the whole of the future of the electrical supply of the country, a course similar to that taken by Sir Robert Peel in 1840. We would thus be able to deal with this important question on general principles. I shall vote against the Bills, with the desire that they may afterwards be dealt with maturely and considerately by the Government and the House.
  *MR. RITCHIE: The right hon. Gentleman has said very truly that the question which the House has to decide is a very important one, perhaps one of the most important ones that have come before the House by means of a private Bill for a great many years. I hope the House will give its attention to the very important considerations in this case before they decide to reject on the Second Reading a Bill that is fraught with so many possibilities. It is true, I think, that the electrical enterprise of this country is in an exceedingly backward condition; it is inferior with regard to light, and certainly with regard to the conveyance of power, to many European countries, and it is greatly inferior to North America and Canada. It may almost be said that there are villages in North America which are in possession of advantages in
  1400
  connection with electricity which some of our largest towns do not possess. It cannot be doubted that there is a great demand for something to be done. At present electric light matters are governed largely by the legislation of 1882, and the right hon. Gentleman has said that this Bill is largely in opposition to many of the enactments in the Act of 1882. If no other charge or argument could be brought against this proposal the arguments of the opponents of this Bill would indeed be weak. It must be remembered that it was the Act of 1882 which more than anything else had delayed and hampered the development of electrical supply, and in so far as this Bill departs from that Act I think its departure is amply justified by the condition of things at present existing in the electrical world.
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I was speaking of the Act of 1888.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I was referring to a speech made by another right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, after having acknowledged the desirability of legislation and the drawbacks of the existing condition of things, made a speech which was, I think, based very largely upon another Bill. When his attention was drawn to this the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to bring his remarks into harmony with any one of these Bills, but still the right hon. Gentleman's argument did refer to powers which are not asked for in this Bill. The Bill does not enable the promoters to distribute electric energy in bulk without the consent of the local authority, or, if it does, I have an assurance from the promoters to the effect that they will undertake to agree to an Amendment in Committee which would make it perfectly clear that they do not ask for the power to distribute even in bulk without the consent of the local authority. The right hon. Gentleman said this Bill proposes to take out the plums and leave the currants; as a matter of fact, there are no plums taken out. The right hon. Gentleman says that, after they get the Bill, there is nothing to compel them to give electrical energy even in bulk, and that cottages in rural districts might be left without the electric light because there was no power of enforcement. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, is wrong in that statement, because Section 38 of the

  1401
  Bill says that the company shall, upon being required to do so by any local authority, give and continue to give to such authority a supply of energy at a price not exceeding that stated in the schedule for a supply in bulk, and shall furnish and lay such mains as may be necessary for the purpose of the supply.
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The words are "in bulk."
  *MR. RITCHIE: Yes, but I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the energy is to be given in bulk to local authorities in order that they may distribute it. It is one of the advantages of the Bill that local authorities which would never dream of setting up their own supply, and could not afford to do so, can come to the company and say they wanted a supply of energy in bulk sufficient to enable them to distribute it among all the people in a particular district.
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what the local authority would be?
  *MR. RITCHIE: The district council or the municipality—they would be the only two local authorities which would be entitled to undertake such a work.
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Not the parish council, I presume?
  *MR. RITCHIE: No. Their powers are extremely limited, and I do not think they often make use of such as they have. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the company could pick and choose whore they would go—that they could take the profitable and leave the unprofitable districts; but they are bound to supply to any local authority within their area such electric energy as the local authority may require, either for manufacturing or lighting purposes. In my opinion the promoters have pursued the right course in bringing forward this Bill, and I ask the House to allow it to go to a Committee where it may be thoroughly examined. In order to make quite sure that the only power asked for in the Bill, so far as the local authorities were concerned, was the power of passing through the streets, and that there was no intention to "invade" any local area, the promoters have given me the following written assurance—
  "The promoters wish it to be clearly under-
  1402
  stood that they are not asking for any power to distribute electricity in any borough or district except with the consent of the local authority concerned, and that they will agree to any amendment to Clause 36 which may be necessary to make this perfectly clear. The promoters are also prepared to insert a provision in the Bill to the effect that, whether in bulk or otherwise, they shall only supply electricity in those boroughs or districts for which Provisional Orders or other statutory powers have been obtained."?
  I do not think it is possible to go any further than these gentlemen propose to go. Whether the House of Commons thinks it is desirable or not to insert any Provisional Orders in this Bill I do not pretend to say, but if any safeguards of that kind are required, the promoters, I am sure, would not object. The object of the Bill is to make electricity, for lighting, and especially for power, to make it popular, and to make it cheap through the whole of the district affected. I am as jealous of the rights of municipalities as any one, but I think it is pushing the matter too far when with one accord municipalities—many of which have no concern in the matter—object to such a small interference as is here proposed. If, in the case of three adjoining districts, A and C want electrical energy for power or light, it is out of the question that B should block the way and prevent A and C from obtaining it. In my opinion that would be distinctly contrary to public interest, and it is only because I believe it to be to the public interest that this enterprise should succeed that I desire to impress upon the House the grave considerations involved before they reject the Bill. What is the proposed interference with the streets? The local authority might dictate to the company the route which the cable should take, and might itself open up the streets and lay the cable, charging the company with the whole cost of the work. Therefore the local authority would maintain in a very large sense the control of its own streets.
  SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH (): Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether a provision to that effect is already in the Bill.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I believe that provision is in the Bill, and if it is not it ought to be. I cannot admit that Liverpool and Manchester will be in the slightest degree damaged by the Bill

  1403
  except in so far as the cable goes through their streets; and there is certainly no power given to the company to compete with the municipalities in the supply of electrical energy unless the local authorities desire them to do so. On all these grounds I think it would he a mistake if the House refuses to allow the Bill to go to a Committee.
  *MR. HALDANE ()suggested that the Bill should he referred to a Hybrid Committee rather than to a Select Committee, so that they would have some guarantee that the matter would he dealt with from a broad point of view for the benefit of the public. He pointed out that this was not an Electric Lighting Bill, and that the clauses would be so framed as to conform to some model plan for future cases. It was primarily and mainly a Power Bill, a Bill introduced for the purpose of enabling power to be supplied in bulk to the few people able to take it. There was no guarantee that in the near future municipalities would supply such power, or express any wish to do anything of the kind. Indeed, the supply of a comparatively restricted class seemed hardly to form part of their duties. They had been asked what public interest was involved. He thought a very great public interest was involved. Our commercial supremacy was being challenged abroad in the development of electric plant and power, and he felt that when Parliament was called upon to take a step which would be the beginning of the development of a new industry they should not interpose an obstacle unthinkingly.
  MR. CRIPPS ()said that the Joint Committee of 1898 reported that a Bill in this form might and ought to be passed, and if passed in this form it would not infringe any rights vested in the local authorities either under the Act of 1882 or that of 1888. The Committee added that if the right of veto, which was now claimed by local authorities, was to be insisted upon, all future development of electrical energy, and more particularly of electrical power, in this country must almost necessarily be stopped. Everyone knew that in the rise of foreign competition electrical power was having the greatest weight as against the industrial development of this country. If the House refused the Second Beading of this Bill they would
  1404
  do what they could to strangle one of the most important industries which required development. Personally, he would prefer the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee, which was a judicial body, rather than to a Hybrid Committee, which was composed of partisans, and, therefore, as bad a tribunal as they could possibly have.
  MR. BRYCE (): I only desire to say a few words on this subject. There is no doubt whatever that of all the manufacturing countries of the world we are nearly at the bottom in the matter of electrical supply, and not only is that an injury to the amount and the cost of production, but it also affects the prosperity of all industries connected with electricity electrical machinery, for instance, having to be imported instead of being manufactured in this country. The matter raised by the Bill is therefore of urgency. Again, we are all anxious to have industries established as much as possible away from the great centres of population, and that can only be done by encouraging undertakings like those proposed to be set up by the Bill. I think, therefore, there is a strong case for this. The Committee which sat two years ago, and which made a report on this subject, distinctly contemplated the bringing in of a Bill of this kind. It dealt with the matter and indicated the general lines on which they thought it should proceed. A great deal of the general legislation with regard to railways has been posterior to the passing of a number of Railway Bills. The House has been continually increasing the control of the administrative department over railways, and a great many points in which the Board of Trade controls railways were not introduced into the earlier Bills, but were the result of subsequent legislation I do not think it is possible for us, at this early stage of electrical legislation, to foresee all the general powers it will be possible for us to introduce into Bills dealing with electric lighting and electric power. We do not part with our powers of controlling the industry in future. It has been distinctly stated by the President of the Board of Trade that the companies do not propose to compote with the municipalities. If that is not sufficiently clear, a clause can be introduced to make it clear. I think, therefore,

  1405
  that the municipalities ought not to object to the Bill in toto, but should confine then efforts to securing the insertion in Committee of such provisions as may be necessary. In one form or another, what we want is a very strong Committee. Whether a Committee of the House, a large Select Committee, or a so-called Hybrid Committee is best to effect the purpose is a question which ought to be considered before it is appointed. But I do not think it would be possible for the House to allow a Bill of this importance to go to one of the ordinary small Committees. I think, moreover, the Board of Trade ought to give an exceptional amount of assistance to any Committee dealing with this question, and that any Committee dealing with it ought to have regard to the suggestions of the Board of Trade, which has had experience in the working of Electrical Supply Acts. If it should turn out that the Committee to which the Bills go does not sufficiently meet the objections taken by the municipalities, or those taken by us on grounds of public policy, we shall have a right to amend or throw over the Bills when they come up for Third Beading.
  MR. RITCHIE: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that these Bills ought not to be sent to an ordinary Private Bill Committee. The constitution of the Committee is a matter for future consideration, but it ought to be a strong Committee, whose decisions will carry weight.
  *SIR ALBERT ROLLIT ()asked the President of the Board of Trade whether there was a provision in the Bill, or in the incorporated statutes, enabling the local authorities to do the through-main work, and, if not, whether he would got that provision inserted.
  MR. RITCHIE: I believe there is no such clause in this Bill. In another company's Bill there is a very clear clause to that effect. It is clear to me that some clause giving to local authorities power over their own streets in the matter of through cable work ought to be inserted.
  *MR. MACLEAN ()asked whether the written undertaking of the Lancashire promoters to do nothing without the consent of the local authorities
  1406
  would also apply to the South Wales Bill, which, in its present form, empowered the promoters to supply wholesale customers, that is to say, to pick the plums out of the pudding, without the sanction of the local authorities.
  MR. RITCHIE: Unless the promoters of these Bills are willing to accept a provision of that kind I should not myself be prepared to vote for the Second Reading.
  MR. GALLOWAY: There are four Bills. Do I understand that all these Bills are to be referred to the same Committee, and put on the same lines by that Committee, or are we to go on with the different principle involved in each Bill?
  MR. RITCHIE: I hope the Members connected with those Bills will be content with the statement made, and will be prepared to give the House an assurance that the Bills will be all practically on the same lines.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON ()hoped the Bills would not be sent to a Hybrid Committee, which he regarded as a vicious tribunal. What was wanted was a strongly selected Committee.
  SIR J. DILLWYN LLEWELYN ()asked whether the President of the Board of Trade would use his best endeavours to get the rights of local authorities recognised in all the Bills.
  MR. RITCHIE: Undoubtedly my influence will be directed to secure that all Bills shall be on the same lines.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND ()asked whether the arrangement as to the Committee would extend to a similar Bill dealing with Dublin.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid he should be glad to consult with the hon. Gentleman if he would show him the Bill.
  SIR J. T. WOODHOUSEhoped the understanding that a Hybrid Committee should be adopted would be strictly adhered to.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid that what he stated was that the Bills ought not to be considered by the ordinary Private Bill Committee, but that the form the Committee might take would be a matter for consultation and consideration.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

  DURHAM (COUNTY OF) ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL (BY ORDER).
    SOUTH WALES ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION BILL (BY ORDER).
      TYNESIDE ELECTRIC POWER BILL (BY ORDER).
      Read a second time, and committed.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IMPROVEMENTS BILL (BY ORDER).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS (): I desire to state to the House the attitude of the Government with reference to this measure. We recognise that it aims at a great improvement, but at the same time there are some important Amendments which we must insist on having introduced into the Bill. One of the Amendments is that the whole space between the proposed new road and the river should be laid out in continuation of the Victoria Tower Gardens. There is really no difference in principle between the Government and the County Council as regards the nature of the Amendments. The County Council and the Government would be sorry to see the improvement scheme checked, and I do not propose to object to the Second Reading, but I reserve to myself the right to ask the House to reject the Bill on the Third Reading unless the Amendments are inserted.
  MR. STUART ()understood the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with the matter. It had only come before the County Council within the last few days, otherwise they would have been prepared with a definite statement. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the friendly attitude he had taken up on the Bill, and recognised that he had the power of dealing with the Bill in future stages.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

  HASTINGS TRAMWAYS BILL (BY ORDER).
  Read a second time, and committed.

  SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL (BY ORDER).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. LOUGH ()said originally he opposed this Bill on the same ground as he opposed another gas Bill the other day—namely, that it did not pay sufficient attention to the recommendations made by a Select Committee of the House. But the Bill as now framed was of a different character. Certain portions of it had been drawn up with the intention of carrying out the recommendations of the Committee. He had been met by the promoters of the Bill in a conciliatory spirit, and he was told they were willing to accept an Instruction of the House, and would carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee so far as they referred to the company. He was putting an Instruction to that effect on the Paper, but he was told it must stand over. For this reason he was not proceeding with the motion that stood in his name.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

  WANDSWORTH AND PUTNEY GAS BILL (BY ORDER).
  Read a second time, and committed.
  ABERDEEN CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL.
  "To authorise the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of the City and Royal Burgh of Aberdeen to construct additional tramways, and to make certain, street improvements in connection therewith; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.

  DUBLIN ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL.
  "For incorporating the Dublin Electric Lighting Company, and for empowering

  1409
  them to light by electricity the City of Dublin and the urban districts of New Kilmainham, Drumcondra, Clonliffe and Glasnevin, and Clontarf, in the county of Dublin; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.

  NEWRY, READY, AND TYNAN LIGHT RAILWAY BILL.
  "For making and maintaining railways in the counties of Down, Armagh, and Monaghan, to be called the Newry, Keady, and Tynan Light Railway; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Chipping Sodbury; Northwich; Chatham; and Pontypool; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Astley Pit; Kirkintilloch; Welch Whittle; Giant's Hall; Dunkirk Pit; Renishaw Park; Parkfield; Oldland; and Wellsgreen Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Edinburgh; and Tarvin; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Cromer: and Colchester; to lie upon the Table.
  TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Wishaw; Coatbridge; and Kinning Park; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS.
  Return [presented 28th February] to be printed. [No. 79.]

  QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.
  Copy presented, of Annual Report and Accounts of the Governors for the year
  1410
  1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Fifty-second Report from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, with an Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON ACT, 1898. Copy presented, of Regulations made for the University of London by the Commissioners under the University of London Act, 1898 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 80.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to Charges on Land, and to matters connected therewith." Land Charges Bill [Lords].
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Reports on Subjects of General and Commercial Interest, No. 522 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  NAVAL WORKS.
  Copy ordered, "of Plan of Works proposed to be carried out at Hong Kong, in accordance with the Naval Works Act, 1899 (in place of the plan issued with Parliamentary Paper, No. 332, of Session 1897)."—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 81.]

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—NEWS FROM THE FRONT—THE RELIEF OF LADYSMITH.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON (): May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has any news from South Africa?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have just received from the War Office a telegram which has been sent to

  1411
  the Secretary of State from Sir Redvers Buller. It runs as follows—
  "I have just returned from Ladysmith. Except a small rear guard north of Surprise Hill, the whole of the enemy lately besieging it have retired in hot haste, and to the south of the town the country is quite clear. The garrison were on a half-pound of meal a day, and were supplementing their meal rations by horses and mules. The men will want a little nursing before they are fit for the field."
  MAJOR RASCH (): May I ask whether that is the reason why the War Office, with their usual ingenuity, have had their flag flying at half-mast all day?
  [No answer was returned.]

  DE BEERS COMPANY—SUGGESTED APPLICATION OF PROFITS FOR BENEFIT OF TROOPS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the speech of Mr. Rhodes at the meeting of the De Beers Company on 24th February, stating that the profits of the Company for the year ended in July last amounted roughly to £2,000,000, and that they had in Kimberley at present a stock of diamonds valued at £167,000; and whether any portion of this large amount of property rescued by Her Majesty's troops from the enemy will be distributed among those troops by way of reward, in the nature of salvage, or will be applied to the relief of the widows and children of those who have fallen.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. friend desires to introduce quite a new military practice with regard to beleaguered towns. It seems to me that the difference between being sacked by your enemies or relieved by your friends would be one of form merely.

  MARTIAL LAW—DUTCH PRISONERS AT SIMONSTOWN.
  MR. COURTNEY (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the three Dutch subjects of Her Majesty, formerly in custody at Simonstown, who were removed to a district where martial law had been proclaimed, and as to whom a writ was issued by the Supreme Court
  1412
  calling upon their custodian to show cause why they were so detained.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The three men in question were sent to Cape Town among a large number of prisoners of war after actions at Graspan and Enslin. They were regarded and treated at Cape Town as prisoners of war. They subsequently applied to the High Court for their release on the ground that they were British subjects arrested on their farms, and that they had not taken up arms against the Government. This was the first intimation that the military authorities at Cape Town had that the men were not ordinary prisoners of war, but British subjects arrested on suspicion of aiding and abetting the enemy. They were accordingly sent back to the district in which they were arrested, and which is under martial law, in order that the charges against them might be investigated on the spot. On these facts the High Court, on 8th February, issued a writ of habeas corpus returnable on 12th March, in order to give time for the military authorities at Orange River to inquire into the case. The result of the inquiry is not yet reported. The military authorities have accepted service of the writ.
  MR. COURTNEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the military authorities referred the question to their legal adviser at home?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAI`N: I have no information.

  ENGLISH CONSUL AT LORENZO MARQUES.
  SIR HENRY HOWORTH(Salford,S.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the official position of the English representative at Lorenzo Marques; whether he is an ordinary Consul, or has some special authority: and whether there is an objection to the production of any correspondence which may have passed between him and the English Government on the transit of recruits, stores, and ammunition through the Portuguese territory of Mozambique into the Transvaal.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): Her Majesty's

  1413
  Consul at Lorenzo Marques is a Consul appointed and admitted in the usual way. There is no correspondence which can, consistently with the public interest, be laid before the House.

  TRANSPORT—THE EIGHTH DIVISION.
  MR. JEFFREYS (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state when the transport vessels will be ready to take the Eighth Division to South Africa.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): There seems to be a misapprehension that the despatch of the Eighth Division had been delayed on account of the transports. The Admiralty received a semi-official requisition from the War Office for transports for this division two days ago—the official requisition yesterday. We at once asked the War Office whether five transports expected home between the 3rd and 6th March should be utilised for that purpose. The War Office agreed, and the ships will he coaled at once, and will be ready to start for the Cape with the Eighth Division between the 10th and 17th, so far as the Transport Department is concerned.

  TRANSPORTS—MEAT SUPPLIES.
  MR. BAIRD (): I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any reports have been received from officers commanding troops on board transports for South Africa on the quality of meat supplied to the troops; whether on several occasions the meat has been condemned by the medical officer and thrown overboard in bulk, while that actually cooked has been found to be un eatable and treated in the same way; whether any reports have been received from South Africa on the condition of some of the troops when lauded to the effect that they had evidently been underfed on the voyage; and whether steps have been taken to secure that the meat issued to the troops on board transports shall be of good quality, and the provisions on sale cheap and plentiful.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): Reports have been received from officers commanding troops on board sixty transports victualled by the Admiralty. On
  1414
  seven transports the salt meat ration was condemned on different occasions and other rations issued. Five commanding officers have reported that the troops disliked the salt beef rations, because they were either too salt, or hard, or unpalatable. The answer to the third paragraph is in the negative. Every care has been taken to secure that the rations issued to the troops should be of the best quality; and in a few cases where complaints had been made that the prices of the canteen were high and the stock of articles sold there insufficient, the attention of the owners has been called to these matters, and they have been rectified. I may add that, in the case of every ship where complaints were made, the salt beef has been landed at the Cape, and that the report of the Board which has surveyed it is to the effect that it is quite satisfactory.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON (): May I ask the hon. Gentleman is it not a fact that some of the transport cases of salt beef were marked "1893"?
  *MR. MACARTNEY: No, Sir; I have received no report to that effect, and I do not believe there is foundation for such a statement.
  SlR J. FERGUSSON: I can submit proof.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN (): Was the condemned beef home grown or foreign?
  [No answer was returned.]

  TREATMENT OF BOER PRISONERS— GENERAL CRONJE AND HIS FAMILY.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether Her Majesty's Government have sent any instructions as to the treatment to be accorded to General Cronje and his family, and whether they are to be imprisoned; and, if so, where and under what conditions.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,) (for Mr. WYNDHAM): No, Sir. The question is one for the decision of the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa. We learn that it is intended to place General Cronje and his family on board the flagship at Cape Town.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Can the hon. Gentleman state whether it is intended permanently to keep General Cronje and his family imprisoned on board ship, instead of leaving him on shore, and is it not true that a great many prisoners kept on board ship have complained—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (): Does not the hon. Gentleman think that something is due to the rank of General Cronje—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! That is a matter of opinion.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Hear, hear ! Why put him in the hulks?

  EXPANDING BULLETS
  . GENERAL LAURIE (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the report of Lord Roberts of 24th instant relative to six men having been wounded by hollow-nosed Mauser bullets, which had been so manipulated by having four slits cut in the shell as to be made a projectile of the most expansive and most explosive nature, is the first official report received at the War Office that such projectiles are being used; whether the wounded Boer prisoner found to have sixty such bullets in his possession was interrogated as to whether these cartridges were manipulated privately or were served out by the authorities in this condition; whether any understanding was arrived at with the Governments of the Transvaal and Orange Free State that explosive bullets so called should not be used by either combatant; whether, if known to have been used prior to the case reported by Lord Roberts, representation had been addressed to the military authorities of the South African Republics; and, if so, what answers have been received; and whether any action can be taken to prevent the use of such projectiles.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): This is the first official intimation of the use of such expansive bullets by the Boers, and no information has been received as to whether the prisoners were interrogated. No understand-
  1416
  ing as to the use of such bullets was arrived at with the two Republics. I am not able at present to say whether it is possible to take any action in the matter.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is it not a fact that these hollow-nosed bullets were made in Birmingham and supplied to the Boers?
  [No answer was given.]

  ALLEGED BOER SPIES IN THE YEOMANRY—BROTHERS BUCK.
  MR. HARWOOD (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if the Brothers Buck, who were accused of being Boer spies and acquitted of that charge, will be restored to their military position.
  *MR. J. POWELL WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The men in question were not tried. They have been discharged, and have no military position.
  MR. MALCOLM (): Has the hon. Gentleman any information confirming the report that these brothers were removed from the Hertfordshire Yeomanry previously?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I have no information to that effect, but it may be so.

  MESSRS. VICKERS, SONS, AND MAXIM —GUNS SUPPLIED TO THE BOERS BEFORE THE WAR.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, when the order for guns from the Transvaal authorities was received in London by Messrs. Vickers, Sons, and Maxim, a letter was sent to the War Office by that firm asking for permission to fulfil the contract; whether the War Office advised the company to supply the guns to the Boers direct; and whether a statement can be made as to how many guns were thus supplied to the Transvaal Government.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS(for Mr. WYNDHAM); No, Sir.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Are we to understand that there is no foundation for the statement?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: That is what the hon. Gentleman will understand, please.

  MAXIM - NORDENFELDT BATTERIES— ARMAMENT PAY.
  COLONEL WYNDHAM - MURRAY (): I hog to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether subalterns volunteering for, and selected from garrison artillery in England to serve with, batteries of Maxim-Nordenfeldts in South Africa, lose their armament pay by being so selected; whether the officers of siege artillery in South Africa receive armament pay; and whether, under the circumstances of the subalterns of garrison artillery having to provide an expensive outfit, the armament pay could be restored to them while so employed.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): All garrison artillery officers employed in the field in South Africa will receive armament pay.

  WIRE NIPPERS.
  MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War who supplied the wire nippers for cutting barbed wire fencing in the present South African war; and whether he is aware that these nippers were made of soft metal in many cases, and therefore were useless for the purpose intended.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The wire nippers were bought from the best firms, and were carefully inspected before despatch; we have had no complaints.
  MR. NUSSLY (): Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of these wire nippers were sent out to South Africa?
  [No answer was given.]

  SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
  MR. GALLOWAY (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what is the total weekly amount of separation allowance now being made by the War Office to the wives, families, and other dependents of soldiers, including the recalled Reserve men, now separated from those dependent upon them; and whether he could state the maximum
  1418
  amount allowed to be allotted from the soldier's pay towards the support of the wife, mother, or other dependent.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The amount of separation allowance or allotment of pay depends on the rank of the soldier. The maximum allowance is that paid to the wife of a warrant officer, namely, 15s. 9d. a week for herself, and 1s. 2d. a week, for each child. The allowance for a private is 7s. 7d. a week, and 1s. 2d. for each child. The soldier may allot his pay, including good conduct pay, up to three-fourths of the total amount to his family. He may also remit any savings beyond that through the medium of his commanding officer.

  VOLUNTEER ENLISTMENT REGULATIONS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the War Office authorities will so far relax the rule laid down for the employment of members of Volunteer companies with their Line battalions at the front as to allow of a Volunteer within a month or two of reaching his twentieth year, and otherwise eligible, being so employed; and whether, in the event of a Volunteer having previously served in the Regulars, and not having completed two years service with the Volunteers, he may be permitted to serve with the unit of his Volunteer battalion in South Africa.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): No general relaxation of the rule can be permitted, but any case of the nature referred to in the second paragraph would be considered on its merits.

  REJOINING THE COLOURS—TWELVE YEARS MEN.
  MR. COURTNEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in the event of twelve years men responding to the invitation to rejoin the colours, they will have the option of extending their time to serve on for a pension.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): As the Under Secretary of State has already explained* to the
  *See page 570 of this volume.

  1419
  House, men who re-enlist for the new permanent battalions will, if they have at least three years to serve, be permitted to serve on for pension. The conditions are under consideration.

  MILITIA—SELECTION OF BATTALONS FOR ACTIVE SERVICE.
  MR. COLSTON (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War on what system Militia battalions are embodied or are selected for service in South Africa; and whether in making such selection any special consideration is given to the certificates held by the officers, or the figure of merit (musketry) and numerical strength and efficiency of battalions.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The selection of battalions rests with the Commander-in-Chief, whose hands it is not expedient to fetter in any way in the matter.

  AUXILIARY FORCES—SERVICE OF ADJUTANTS AT THE FRONT.
  MR. COHEN (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the losses of officers sustained by some of the regiments in South Africa, and of the fact that it has been found necessary to send out officers who have left Sandhurst only a few days, the Secretary of State would permit adjutants of the Auxiliary forces to be temporarily attached to their regiments at the front, provided their colonels are willing to spare their services and can obtain officers of the Reserve to perform their duties.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The Commander-in-Chief does not think the course proposed advisable.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS WITH IRISH MILITIA REGIMENTS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ash the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is usual to send a Roman Catholic chaplain with. Irish Militia regiments, mostly composed of Roman Catholics, going to South Africa; whether the North Dublin Militia, when volunteering for service at the front, asked that they should be provided with a Roman Catholic chaplain, and were promised that
  1420
  they would have one; whether there was a Roman Catholic chaplain on the s.s. "Servia," on which the North Dublin Militia sailed from Queenstown for South Africa; if not, will he explain why one was not provided; were there any Protestant chaplains on the same ship, and how many? and whether he will see that in future Irish Roman Catholic Militia going to the front are provided with a chaplain of their own religion.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is in the negative. Chaplains are not appointed regimentally; but are attached to divisions. In answer to the second paragraph I have to say that nothing is known of any such request. Two Church of England clergymen who went out as volunteers without pay happened to be travelling on the "Servia." Seven Roman Catholic chaplains are serving with the troops in South Africa; and the generals in command can, if necessary, make, in addition, arrangements with the local clergy for ministration to the soldiers. The War Office cannot undertake that there shall be a Roman Catholic clergyman on every transport, but all that is possible is done to provide for the religious needs of the troops.

  ALLEGED COMPULSION TO VOLUNTEER—THE DUBLIN POLICE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, as representing the Chief Secretary to. the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the authorities have been bringing pressure on any members of the Dublin police force to volunteer for service in South Africa; whether he can say if any and how many members of the force have volunteered; whether, seeing that the corporation or the ratepayers of Dublin are chargeable with a share of the maintenance and pensions of the Dublin police, their sanction was obtained before these police were asked to volunteer; whether the superannuation to the men who go to the war, and part of which the ratepayers of Dublin will have to pay, will be allowed to the police for their services during the time they may be absent at the war; and whether, in case any of the men should come back wounded or otherwise incapacitated for police duty, their pensions will be chargeable in whole or part on the

  1421
  rates of Dublin, or will be borne by Imperial Exchequer; if not, whether the Government will consult the Corporation of Dublin on these points before sending any of the metropolitan police to the front.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): With one exception, the only members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force who can be called Volunteers resigned their position in the force before leaving for South Africa. The exception consisted of a constable who volunteered for service with Lord Iveagh's ambulance corps. His case is under consideration. I need hardly say that no pressure whatever was put upon any of these constables to take the action they did take.

  CLARE MILITIA.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War where the Clare Militia is at present stationed, and whether it is intended to ask the regiment to volunteer for the front; and, if so, will each man be individually asked if he is willing to go.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The Clare Artillery Militia is stationed at Plymouth. There is no present intention of calling on the regiment to volunteer for service in South Africa, but should it be asked to volunteer it will not be treated differently from other units.

  UNICODE FOR TELEGRAMS TO THE FRONT.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether military officers serving in South Africa can communicate with their friends at home at 2s. per word of a Unicode which may comprise a sentence, and ordinary soldiers are charged 4s. per word or message; and whether the Unicode at 2s. per word will be made available for all soldiers who may desire to use it.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): The charge for private telegrams from South Africa to this country is four shillings per word, and for Government telegrams two shillings per word. The Postmaster General is not
  1422
  aware of any distinction being made between the telegrams of officers and those of private soldiers. He is, however, in communication with the Secretary of State for War on the subject, and will inform the hon. Member of the result of the inquiry. Private telegrams in code are at present not allowed by the military authorities to be sent either to or from South Africa.

  1ST CADET BATTALION KING'S ROYAL RIFLES.
  MR. LEES KNOWLES (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in the 1st Cadet Battalion the King's Royal Rifle Corps, which has sent upwards of 100 recruits to the Regular Army in the last two years, and has contributed contingents to the King's Royal Rifle Corps and City of London Imperial Volunteers for service in South Africa, only fifty per cent. of servicable arms are supplied, thereby placing the battalion in an inferior position to cadet corps composed of younger lads attached to Volunteer battalions; and whether, in view of the fact that the rank and file of this cadet battalion average nearly seventeen years in ago, and five feet six inches in height, and fire a musketry course with ball cartridge, the Secretary of State will arrange for the issuing of Lee-Metford rifles for the full establishment of six hundred.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The members of a cadet battalion may not exceed seventeen years of age, and may be as young as fourteen years. It is considered that 50 per cent. of rifles for ball practice is sufficient when the age of the cadets is taken into account. The remainder of the corps have carbines for drill purposes.

  ARMY ESTIMATES.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is now able to inform the House when the Army Estimates will be in the hands of Members.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): I trust that the Estimates will be in the hands of Members in the course of this evening.

  ENNISKILLEN BARRACKS.
  MR. ARCHDALE (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the proposed increase to our Army, the War Office will reconsider their decision to remove headquarters from Enniskillen, a town which has given three regiments to the Army; and whether, taking into account its central position at the junction of four railways and the other advantages it possesses for troops, they will take into account the advisability of pulling down the disused gaol and erecting extra barracks on its site.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: This decision cannot be reconsidered.

  WATER-TUBE BOILERS.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can see his way to state the longest time that the water-tube boilers of any of Her Majesty's ships have been under continuous working at full power at sea without developing defects, and the consumption of coal per horse power developed during such working.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMLRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's.): The longest run under continuous sea-going full power is that of the "Diadem" in December, 1898, when she was under weigh for sixty-nine hours for a distance of 1,330 knots at an average indicated horse-power of 14,268 and an average speed of 19·27 knots an hour. The coal consumption for all purposes was 2·16 1b. per indicated horse-power. No defects to speak of were developed during the run, and these did not affect the steaming, the power and speed being maintained up to the end. I may add that the "Powerful," which left for the China Station in 1897, has in the course of her commission gone through speed trials which, though of shorter relative duration, are of equal interest. In a run from Hong Kong to Manila in March, 1899, she steamed for twenty-seven hours a distance of 540 knots, at an average speed of 20·2 knots an hour, and an indicated horse-power of 19,600. Her coal consumption was 2·6 1b. per indicated horse-power for all purposes. No defects were developed. In the previous year she had gone
  1424
  through a similar trial run with equally good results. In regard to the four hours full speed trial, the captain wrote—
  "We averaged over 23,000 horse-power, and were well over 24,000 horse-power one hour, and the average number of revolutions for the four hours was just over 110 per minute, which in smooth water would give over 21·5 knots an hour. Engines and boilers worked perfectly. Now, surely, in the name of all the gods of common sense, this result ought to be considered absolutely satisfactory. Remember we had not got hand-picked coal, and that practically we are in the tropics—thermometer in my large airy cabin 88. So, proportionately, our trial is at least as good as the contractor's 25,000 horse-power one, with hand-picked coal and a temperate climate."

  PACIFIC CABLE.
  MR. HOGAN (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received protests from the Canadian and New Zealand Governments against the concessions recently granted to the Eastern Extension Company in Australia as being likely to militate seriously against the financial success of the Pacific Cable in which the Imperial, the Canadian, and the Australasian Governments are joint partners; whether in view of these protests it would still be possible to revoke the concessions and prevent any further complications of a like character; and whether the Pacific Cable Board will soon be in a position to announce a definite scheme.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have made inquiry by telegraph as to the agreement said to have been entered into with the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company, but have not yet received any reply; and consequently I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject. I understand that the Report of the Pacific Cable Committee may be expected shortly.

  CEYLON LAND ORDINANCES.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies will he explain why, in view of his alleged decision to amend the Waste Land Ordinances of Ceylon, the Ceylon Government has been permitted to go on dealing with thousands of acres of land under the old law; whether the amending law will contain a retrospective clause so as to include the extent of acres already noticed; will he explain on what grounds Mr Francis

  1425
  do Silva Abeyawardene, the Muduliyar of the Welaboda Pathen of the Matora district, was summarily dismissed from office without being furnished with a copy of the evidence against him; and was this dismissal in accordance with the colonial rules and regulations.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first two paragraphs of the hon. Member's question, he is aware, from the correspondence laid before Parliament last year, that the Waste Lands Ordinances of 1897 and 1889 are in operation in Ceylon, and that I have directed that the latter Ordinance is to be amended in certain respects. The amendments in question are not such as to render it necessary or even desirable to suspend action under these Ordinances. I have no reason to suppose that any action which may have been taken since the Ordinance of 1899 was brought into operation is contrary to the spirit or the letter of the amendments which I have directed to be made in the law; but I have asked the Governor of Ceylon for a report on this point. As regards the third and fourth paragraphs of the hon. Member's question, Mr. Abeyawardene was dismissed from his post of Muduliyar because on the 14th February, 1898, he sent for a witness and endeavoured to intimidate him by threats from giving evidence for the Crown in the matter of certain forged deeds relating to land, upon which he had already given evidence. The charges were communicated to Mr. Abeyawardene, and his defence fully considered. He did not, however, ask for a copy of the evidence, nor did he bring forward any witnesses. The whole of the evidence was sent to me, and I consider that it proves his guilt conclusively. The case was dealt with strictly in accordance with that clause of the colonial rules and regulations which deals with the dismissal of officials of his status.

  BENGAL, BOMBAY, AND MADRAS MILITARY FUND.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that the widows and orphans of subscribers to the Bengal, Bombay, and Madras Military Fund who wish to reside and draw their pensions in India are obliged by the Government to draw them at the old fixed rate of 2s. 3d.
  1426
  to the rupee, thus being mulcted of nearly 50 per cent. of the value of their pensions, whereas if pensions are drawn in England, Ceylon, or elsewhere they are paid at the official rate of exchange; whether he is aware that the effect of this anomaly is to prevent recipients of these pensions from joining their relatives in India who may be engaged in the Military or Civil Service; and whether it can be arranged that such pensions shall be settled for in India at the official rate or may be drawn in London.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The pensions to which my hon. friend refers were fixed in rupees by the subscribers themselves, but payments to persons resident in this country or in the colonies are made, not at the official rate of exchange, but at a special rate of about 2s. 3d. the rupee, in accordance with a guarantee given in the Statute 29 Vic., cap. 18. Naturally, this exceptional advantage ceases if a recipient of one of these pensions goes to reside in India; but for the benefit of pensioners wishing to visit that country for a period not exceeding one year, the Secretary of State, as a concession, allows their pensions to be accumulated during their absence, and the accumulations are paid to them on; their return at the exceptional rate of exchange above mentioned. It will be seen that these arrangements give exceptionally favourable treatment to this class of pensioners at the expense of the revenues of India; and I am not prepared to accept the suggestion in the last clause of my hon. friend's question, which would have the effect of increasing the burden on those revenues.

  NORTH-WEST FRONTIER OF INDIA— CONTEMPLATED MILITARY OPERATIONS.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether, as reported, special military operations are contemplated by the Government of India on the north-west frontier.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have no knowledge of the reports referred to by the hon. Member, nor am I aware that any special military operations are contemplated by the Government of India on the north-west frontier.

  INDIAN FAMINE —LAND REVENUE REMISSIONS.
  SIR W. WEDDEBBURN (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, with reference to the sums of Rx. 1,520,000 and Rx. 2,130,000, total remissions and suspensions of land revenue on account of famine in India in 1876-7 and 1896-7 respectively, whether he will state what portions of these sums were subsequently recovered from the landholders.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Of the remissions of revenue, no portion was subsequently recovered. Of the suspensions, a very large portion was afterwards converted into remissions, or, in other words, was never recovered; but I cannot state the exact amount.

  FAMINE RELIEF IN BERAR.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, with reference to the Viceroy's telegram of 20th February, whether he will state what are the stricter regulations referred to as having diminished the number of persons on famine relief in Berar; and whether he will state what is the average daily wage paid to men, women, and children employed on relief works, with its equivalent in sterling.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: In accordance with the recommendation of the Famine Commission, relief work is now given only to such persons as are willing to do a full day's work "in return for a wage sufficient for the purpose of maintenance, but not more." This test, which is known as the "labour test," was not applied in Berar during the earliest stages of the famine. But it is now known that the numbers on relief work in that province have not been diminished, as was supposed, but have increased from 243,000 on the 22nd January to 308,000 on the 24th February. The average daily wage cannot be stated in sterling, being based upon the current price of food in the district in question, and varying accordingly from week to week. The wage for an adult is the money equivalent of from 1½b. to 2½lb. of grain perdiem.

  TELEGRAPHIC RATES TO INDIA.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to
  1428
  the minutes of dissent recorded by the Maharaja of Darbhanga and the Hon. Mr. Mehta on the Telegraphic Messages Bill, to the effect that, on account of the high telegraphic rates, the Bill will not, as desired, produce a first rate telegraphic service for India, but will create a monopoly in favour of a few daily newspapers; and whether he will use his influence to obtain a reduction in the telegraphic rates to India.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have read the minutes referred to, but their contents seemed to me to be far fetched, though I admit, and am pressing, the advisability of a reduction of the telegraphic rates to India.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, considering that a reduction in the rates of telegraphic communication between England and India has for many years past been urged by the chambers of commerce and others interested in commercial relations between the two countries, he will endeavour to bring about the desired result at as early a date as possible.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The subject of a reduction of the telegraphic tariff between Europe and India has engaged for some time past my attention with a view to bringing about a reduction of rates.

  INDIAN TROOPS IN BRITISH EAST AFRICA.
  MR. BUCHANAN (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Indian Government has now been repaid in full by the Home Government the expenses connected with the despatch and maintenance of the Indian troops sent to British East Africa and Uganda in 1896 and 1897; what has been the cause of the delay in the settlement of these accounts; and whether he will lay upon the Table the correspondence that has passed between the Governments and Departments on the subject.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The Government of India has been repaid all charges in connection with the despatch and maintenance of the Indian troops sent to British East Africa and Uganda to the end of September, 1898; and the accounts

  1429
  of the quarter to the end of December, 1898, the latest date to which they have been received from India, are now under examination at the Foreign Office. There has been no delay in the settlement of the accounts in England. The correpondence is a mass of detail, consisting of the transmission of twelve quarterly accounts, and the questions arising thereon. It would be of no public interest.

  INDIAN NATIVE TROOPS IN MAURITIUS, &c.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what is the number of native troops now serving in Mauritius and elsewhere outside of India, and does the Imperial Government in all cases bear the entire charge of all the troops so serving.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Two native infantry regiments are now serving in Mauritius, one in Ceylon and one in Singapore, and there are small detachments in Uganda, Central Africa, and the Niger Protectorate. I do not include among these the Hong Kong regiment and the companies of Indian native artillery serving at Hong Kong, Singapore, Mauritius, and Ceylon, which were raised and are maintained for Imperial purposes. I am unable to state the exact numbers of these forces. In all these cases the Imperial Government, or the Administration under which the troops are serving, bears the entire charge.

  BISHOP OF CALCUTTA AND SCOTTISH PRESBYTERIAN CHAPLAINS.
  SIR MARK STEWART (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, seeing that Clause 51, Chapter 155, of the Act of George III. has not been repealed, he can state by what authority is the Bishop of Calcutta justified in exorcising a jurisdiction over the chaplains of the Church of Scotland in India.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I am at a loss to understand the question of my hon. friend. I am not aware that the Bishop of Calcutta exercises or claims to exercise any jurisdiction over chaplains of the Church of Scotland in India.
  SIR M. STEWART: Is it not a fact that the Bishop of Calcutta prohibits
  1430
  chaplains of the Church of Scotland from exercising any ministerial functions in consecrated churches?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: If a chaplain of the Church of Scotland wants to make use of a consecrated church belonging to the Church of England he has to obtain the Bishop's authority. I fail to see that that is exercising jurisdiction over him.

  RUSSIAN LOAN TO PERSIA.
  MR. HEDDERWICK (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State; for Foreign Affairs whether the new Russian loan to Persia supplants the British loan; whether Her Majesty's Government had the option from the Bank of Persia of guaranteeing the new loan before it was taken up by Russia; and whether Her Majesty's Government declined to guarantee it.
  *MR. BRODRICK: It is understood that a portion of the new Persian loan is to be applied to paying off any existing foreign loans, and presumably it is intended that what is called the Regie Loan, issued by the Imperial Bank of Persia, should be so paid off. No proposals have been made to Her Majesty's Government for a loan to Persia which they felt themselves able to accept, and the arrangement for the present loan was concluded without any offer being made to them.

  BRITISH CONSULATES AT TIFLIS AND BAKU.
  MR. COHEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government is aware if there would be any objection by the Russian Government to the re-establishment of the British Consulate at Tiflis, and to the creation of a Consulate at Baku; and, if there be no such objection, whether it is intended to re-establish the first and to create the second.
  *MR. BRODRICK: I have already stated that the Russian Government have been informed that it was understood they would be ready to agree to the re-establishment of a Consulate at Tiflis in exchange for the appointment of a Russian Consul at Bombay, but that no formal notification has yet been received of an appointment to the latter post. No communications have taken place with

  1431
  regard to the establishment of a Consulate at Baku. It has not as yet been decided whether the appointment of Consular Officers to reside at Tiflis or Baku is required.

  MOROCCO—REPORTED FRENCH OCCUPATION OF TAFILET.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office have any information bearing upon the report that Tafilet, in Morocco, has been occupied by French troops.
  *MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir. We have no information.

  SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR—REPORTED BRITISH SALE OF AMMUNITION TO SPAIN IN 1898.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Senor Silvela stated recently in the Spanish Senate that before the war with the United States in 1898 the British Government had consented to let Spain have 8,500 shells which had been manufactured at the Maxim factory in Plancia, Biscay; and, if so, can the Government offer any explanation.
  *MR. BRODRICK: I answered this question three days ago,* and I have nothing to add to what I then said.

  CHINA.—AMERICAN AND BRITISH INTERESTS — ASSURANCES PROM EUROPEAN POWERS.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United States Government have received formal written assurances from England, France, Russia, Germany, Japan, and Italy that the United States treaty rights with China shall remain secure in Chinese territory acquired or to be acquired by foreign nations; and, if so, whether the terms of these assurances are reciprocal, and whether they secure these rights equally for British trade: and whether and when a copy of the assurances thus exchanged will be laid upon the Table.
  *MR. BRODRICK: In September last Her Majesty's Government were officially
  *See page 1,093 of this volume.
  1432
  informed by the American Ambassador of the desire of the United States Government to obtain from Powers interested in China a declaration as to their intentions in regard to the treatment of foreign trade and interests therein, with a view to securing equality of treatment for all commerce irrespective of nationality. The proposal was accepted by Her Majesty's Government subject to similar assent being given by the other powers concerned. The replies received by the United States from other Powers have not yet been communicated to Her Majesty's Government. Papers will be laid when the matter is concluded.

  SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACT, 1899.
  MR. HAZELL (): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any applications have so far been made, by local authorities to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for loans under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899; and if so, how many and from what authorities; and whether he can give any information as to the number of cases in which local authorities have made advances to persons under this Act up to the present.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,): I understand that the Public Works Loan Commissioners have not at present received any applications for loans under the Act referred to. The Local Government Board have no information as to the number of cases in which local authorities have made advances under the Act. Their jurisdiction, however, only extends to England and Wales.
  MR. HAZELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to give the local authorities notice of the benefits to be derived under this Act?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I think they have had notice already.

  HULL SMALLPOX EPIDEMIC.
  MR. LEES KNOWLES (on behalf of the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to two cases of smallpox in London which have been distinctly traced to neglect of

  1433
  due precautions by the authorities at Hull; and what steps he intends to take in the matter to prevent similar cases of outbreak of smallpox.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I have made inquiry with regard to this matter. It appeal's that the two men from whom the cases referred to are thought to have derived the infection were employed by a contractor in erecting additional buildings at the smallpox hospital at Hull. I am informed that it was desired by the Hull authorities that the men employed should be re-vaccinated before entering on this work. It was also arranged that the men should not be required to work within 60 feet of any building in which there were smallpox patients, but there is some conflict of testimony as to whether this arrangement was strictly observed. The only effective precaution that can be taken in eases of this kind is re-vaccination, and in the present instance gratuitous re-vaccination was offered to the men, but unfortunately they declined to accept the offer.

  THE CENSUS—MILITARY STATISTICS.
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, when the census is taken, he will arrange that each householder is asked whether he has served in the Army, the Militia, or the Volunteers, and if he is willing to serve again should the country be threatened with invasion.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I can quite sympathise with the object of my hon. friend, but I doubt if his proposal would accomplish the purpose which I suppose he has in view. Moreover, I am advised that any addition to the census schedules would increase the danger of inaccuracy and involve delay, and I am afraid I cannot accede to his suggestion.

  LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON (): I beg to ask the hon. Member for Hammersmith, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether he intends to introduce a Bill this session for legalising the sale of drink in the House and its precincts.
  GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY (): As the hon. Member and his
  1434
  friends have for two sessions prevented a Bill introduced by my predecessor from becoming law, it is not my intention to reintroduce the Bill.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Arising out of the answer, may I ask whether it is intended to go on selling and serving drink without any legal power?
  [No answer was given.]

  FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE REGULATIONS.
  MR. STEVENSON (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is now prepared to frame regulations for the purpose of meeting the case of small farmers and others who may require, as a matter of urgency, to send a cow to a neighbouring farm and back for stock purposes.
  The following questions also appeared on the Paper—
  MR. STEVENSON: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is now able to make any further modification with respect to the restrictions contained in the Order of the 22nd inst., with special reference to the wide dimensions of the scheduled area; and whether he will exclude altogether from the operation of the Order the petty sessional divisions which are farthest removed from the scene of the outbreak, and which have shown an immunity from disease.
  MR. E. W. WILSON (): To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in consideration of the loss arising to the farmers of Norfolk and Suffolk through their inability to sell their fat cattle, and in the absence of any fresh outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in the scheduled district, he is able to remove or greatly relax the present restrictive orders.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): In reply to the questions on this subject which the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk have placed upon the Paper, I would say that the possibility of further modifying the existing restrictions in the directions suggested is being kept under consideration, but I am not able at the moment to announce any further measure of relief.

  1435
  The position is, however, much more satisfactory than it was, and I am hopeful that we may be able gradually to relax our Orders both in Bedfordshire and East Anglia with the knowledge that, notwithstanding the serious loss and inconvenience occasioned locally, they have prevented the disease from becoming epidemic through the country.
  MR. PRICE (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, as currently reported in Norfolk, a second outbreak of foot and mouth disease took place on the farm at Fritton, where the cattle first infected by the disease were not promptly slaughtered?
  *MR. LONG: No, Sir; we have no reason whatever to suppose that any extension of foot and mouth disease has taken place in consequence of the decision that it would be safer to isolate and not to slaughter the animals affected at Fritton. I may take this opportunity of saying that that decision was based, not, as has been suggested, on financial grounds, but upon purely practical and scientific considerations.

  OLDHAM COUNTY COURT.
  MR. EMMOTT (): I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the condition of the Oldham County Court, which is stated to have been the cause of the recent death of the late Judge Edwin Jones; whether he is aware that the external walls of the county court are built without cavities, and that no damp resisting material was used above the ground line; that the contractor who built the court remonstrated against the defects; and that the local authority would not have passed the plans had they had jurisdiction in the matter; and whether, having regard to the danger to the health of those who now have to use the court caused by the present condition of the building, he will cause inquiry to be made, and, if possible, some remedy to be applied.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): I am not aware of any recent complaints of dampness in the structure of the Oldham County Court, and from what I have been able to ascer-
  1436
  tain there is no evidence that the late judge's illness was due to such defects. I am having inquiry made into the allegations with a view to any improvement that may be necessary.

  INDICATOR OF DEBATES FOR THE STRANGERS' GALLERY.
  SIR BLUNDELL MAPLE (): I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether provision can be made for an indicator to be placed in the Strangers' Gallery, whereby visitors may know the name of the Member speaking, similar to the arrangement existing in the Library and other places within the House.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I will consider my hon. friend's suggestion with the others which have been made to me for the introduction of further indicators of debates; but I would remind him that the case is not quite analogous to that of the other instruments, and I think there may be strong objections.
  SIR BLUNDELL MAPLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman at the same time consider the advisability of allowing our friends in the Strangers' Gallery to have copies of the Orders of the Day?
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: That is not a matter for my consideration.

  CABLE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE CAPE AND AUSTRALIA.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE (): I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state to the House whether the Eastern Telegraph Company has asked for any aid from the Imperial Government in connection with its proposals to lay a direct cable between the Cape and Australia, now accepted by the Governments of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania; and, if so, whether he can state to the House the general nature of any such request.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): No application for a subsidy has reached the Treasury in connection with the present proposals, and, so far as I know, no subsidy is asked for

  JOINT STOCK COMPANY SHAKE TRANSFERS.
  MR. MARKS (): I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under the provisions of the Stamp Act, 1891, a joint stock company distributing shares to its members by way of dividend or bonus is required to stamp each transfer with the fixed duty of 10s. as on a transfer of marketable securities other than on sale or mortgage, irrespective of the market or par value of the shares transferred to each member.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes, Sir.

  VOLUNTARY SUBSCRIPTION TO CHURCH SCHOOLS.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether there has been any falling off in voluntary subscriptions to Church schools in England during the last twelve months.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): During the statistical year ending August 31st, 1899, the voluntary subscriptions to Church of England schools increased by £16,673, as compared with the amount in the previous statistical year.

  ORGANISATION OF SECONDARY EDUCATION.
  SIR MICHAEL FOSTER (): I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether in the impending organisation of secondary education, and more particularly in the appointment of a secretary, due regard will be had, apart from any special provision for technological training, to the importance of securing adequate recognition of scientific teaching in secondary schools.
  SIR J. GORST: Yes; the Government is fully alive to the importance of scientific teaching in secondary schools; and will take care that nothing is done in the organisation of the Board of Education to impede its efficiency and progress.

  SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM—PURCHASE OF OBJECTS OF ALT.
  SIR HENRY HOWORTH: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee
  1438
  of Council on Education if he will describe the process of purchasing objects for the South Kensington Museum, and define the responsibilities of the Director to the Committee of Council; and whether the responsibility for the purchase of objects is shared by any other official except the Director of the Art Museum and the President and Vice-President of the Council.
  SIR JOHN GORST: Objects are pur chased for the Victoria and Albert Museum on the initiative of the Directors of the Art and Science branches respectively. Their recommendations are supported, where they think it desirable, by expert opinion; and before sanctioning the purchase expert advice is called in by the Committee of Council in cases where they desire it. The responsibility for the purchase rests with the Committee of Council alone. The Director is only responsible to them for the advice he gives.

  PARISH CHURCHYARDS—AUTHORITY OVER MONUMENTS, ETC.
  MR. HAZELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Rev. S. Turner, Rector of Coveney, Cambridgeshire, objected to the erection of a. monument in the churchyard of that parish over the grave of Mrs. Chambers on the grounds that it was in the form of an obelisk, which was of heathen origin, and that it had, as part of the inscription, the words ''Peace! Perfect peace!" instead of a passage from the Scriptures, or the Liturgy, which alone he could allow; whether he is aware that, on the removal of the monument by the rector, he was sued for damages by the deceased's husband in the county court at Ely, when the judge decided that the erection of an obelisk was not illegal, and that the monument might be re-erected; and whether steps will be taken to prevent such exercise of authority by incumbents as the custodians of parochial burial places.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): I understand that the facts are stated with substantial accuracy in the first paragraph of the question, but that no such legal decision as that indicated in

  1439
  the second paragraph has been given. I am not aware of any steps which it is possible for me to take in such a matter; but I may point out that the exercise of an incumbent's authority in such cases is, as I am advised, subject to the jurisdiction of the ordinary and of the Ecclesiastical and Civil Courts.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—PENSIONS OF EX-SOLDIERS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that ex-postmen and ex-warders in the Metropolitan Police Force are allowed to count their previous service to the State towards pension, he will consider the advisability of placing upon the same footing ex-soldiers who have completed their twelve years with the colours, more especially as these men are few in number and scarcely available for promotion owing to age.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: The suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member could not be carried out without legislation, as my light hon. friend the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department stated in answer to a similar question last April; and I do not see my way to initiating such legislation.

  LONDON CAP RADIUS.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any alteration is to be made in the London cab radius; and, if so, could he state the extent of the change.
  MR. LOUGH (): I beg at the same time to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received representations from Islington, Hammersmith, and other vestries in the metropolis requesting that the London cab radius should be extended, as recommended by the Departmental Committee of 1895; and, if so, whether he can see his way to carry out these recommendations.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: In answer to these questions I have to say that representations have been received by me from four of the metropolitan vestries (but not from Islington), requesting an extension of the cab radius, but that I do not see my way to make any such alteration at present.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE MAGISTRATES.
  CAPTAIN JESSEL (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the inconvenience caused to the public by the simultaneous absence through illness of three of the metropolitan police magistrates in December last, he intends to introduce legislation to amend the law relating to the appointment of deputies; whether, in view of the increasing work of the police courts, he can see his way to appoint additional magistrates; and whether the services of the county magistrates could be utilised in trying School Board and vaccination cases.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: This whole subject has recently been carefully considered by a Departmental Committee, but I am unable to say what measures will eventually be adopted for dealing with it.

  MATCH RULES.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home; Department whether an arbitration on the new Match Rules will take place on the 2nd, 3rd and 5th of the month; and whether it would be possible to suspend the arbitration and adopt the new procedure to be introduced by the Factory and Workshops Bill, of which notice has been given.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: Yes, Sir. The dates given are those fixed for the arbitration in London. As regards the second paragraph, the rides under arbitration are the outcome of action which the Home Office has been taking for many months, and it would be most undesirable to postpone a settlement until a new Factory Act has come into force, and then to commence proceedings de novo.

  RETURN OF LUNATIC ASYLUMS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is any objection to give the Return of Lunatic Asylums asked for by the hon. Member for East Wicklow, which appears on the Notice Paper this day.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: My main objection to granting this Return is that I cannot myself see, and have not been able to ascertain from the hon. Member

  1441
  who asks for it, what useful purpose the Return is expected to serve. It is a costly one to prepare, and seems to contain little of value which cannot he got from the annual Reports of the Lunacy Commissioners.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is it not a continuation of a Return more than once granted?
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: Yes, and it is from looking at the Return that I have formed the conclusion that its value is not proportionate to the expense it involves. I shall be glad, however, to see the hon. Member who asks for it, on the subject.

  LEAD POISONING IN THE POTTERIES—MESSES. DOULTON.
  MR. TENNANT (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet received a Report from the Chief Inspector of Factories on the circumstances in connection with the proceedings against Messrs. Doulton; and, if so, what action he has taken to secure compliance with the special rules as by law established.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I have received the Chief Inspector's Report on this case. He has caused Messrs. Doulton to be warned that they must provide without delay the washing accommodation required by the special rides in force in their works. If they fail to do so, further legal proceedings will be taken.

  COMMUNICATION ON PASSENGER TRAINS.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the railway companies are about to introduce, or have introduced, a means of communication between passenger and guard and driver which depends for its successful action upon a partial application of the automatic brake; and, if so, whether the introduction of this means of communication is supported by the technical officers of his Department and by the engineering officers of the railway companies or the Railway Association.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): I would refer the hon. Member to the correspondence upon this subject recently presented to Parliament (Cd. 71). The
  1442
  introduction of the moans of communication is supported by the technical officers of the Board of Trade and by the responsible managers of most the large companies.

  DELAYS ON THE UNDERGROUND RAILWAY.
  MR. MASSEY-MAINWARING (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the delay on the Underground Railway on Monday night, the 19th instant, owing to a breakdown, and to a passenger's statement that he had elicited from the officials at a, station that they are habitually kept in ignorance of the facts when such incidents occur; and whether the Board of Trade has power to compel railway companies to post up at stations notice of probable delay beyond a reasonable time, and so afford passengers the opportunity of reaching their destination by other routes.
  MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir; the Board of Trade cannot compel the companies to post up such notices, and I doubt whether the suggestion is of much practical value. The manager of the Metropolitan District has addressed a letter to the Board dealing fully with the subject of the question, and I shall be happy to supply the hon. Member with a copy if desired.

  WORKMEN'S SHELTERS.
  MR. FIELD (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the Dublin Trades Council, requesting city builders and contractors to provide shelters where workmen can retire from rain and cook their food, and also requesting municipal councils and other public bodies to have a clause inserted in all future contracts providing such shelters; and whether the Board of Trade will take any steps to forward this movement by its influence and legislation.
  MR. RITCHIE: The matter referred to by the hon. Member does not come within the scope of the powers of the Board of Trade.

  MERCANTILE MARINE AND ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE—ENCOURAGEMENT OF BOY RECRUITING.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR (): I beg to ask the Presi-

  1443
  dent of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that the scheme to encourage the entrance of British boys into the Mercantile Marine and Royal Naval Reserve by the offer of a partial rebate of light dues to shipowners carrying such hoys has failed to meet with a satisfactory response, he would appoint a Departmental or other Committee to consider, in consultation with shipowners and others concerned, the best mode of applying the sum which the Government is willing to grant in furtherance of these national objects.
  MR. RITCHIE: The scheme has only been in operation a short time, and until it has had a longer trial it is not possible to form any opinion as to its ultimate result. As the advantages of the scheme become more generally known I trust that more boys will be employed. The Act provides for the continuance of the scheme until 31st March, 1905, and it would be premature at present to interfere in any way with its operation.

  WATERLOO AND CITY RAILWAY.
  MR. KESWICK (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the attention of the Board has been called to the management of the Waterloo and City Railway, the accommodation provided, and the regulations made for the conveyance of passengers from Waterloo to the City, particularly between the hours of 9 a.m. and 10.30 a.m.; if so, whether the Board have taken, or intend to take, any, and what, steps, to secure better management and accommodation; if not, whether he will instruct the proper officer to visit the station at Waterloo on several mornings, in order that he may report to the Board on such management and accommodation, and that the Board may make regulations for improvement therein.
  MR. RITCHIE: The Board of Trade are not in a position to interfere in such a matter relating to the management of a railway. They understand, however, from the manager of the London and South-Western Railway that the number of trains run from Waterloo to the City is as great as can be run with safety, and that in consequence of complaints of overcrowding steps have been taken by the company to regulate the number of persons to be admitted to the platform at one
  1444
  time, an arrangement which, it is stated, has been attended with satisfactory results.

  P. AND O. STEAMERS—ACCOMMODATION FOR ASIATICS.
  *MR. HAVELOCK WILSON (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the number of Asiatic or other native able seamen, and the number of Asiatics or natives engaged in the stokehold and engineroom of Peninsular and Oriental steamships "Arcadia," "Carthage," and "China," respectively; also the number of places provided for the accommodation and appropriated for the use of such persons; and the cubical space and the number of superficial feet measured on the deck or floor provided for each person in each of these ships.
  MR. RITCHIE: The number of Asiatics engaged on deck and in the stokehold of the "Arcadia" is 123, the number of spaces allotted to their use is four and the aggregate superficial area works out to nine and a half square feet per man, while the cubic capacity is seventy-six cubic feet per man. The men, however, are so distributed throughout the spaces as in some cases to give them less and in others more than the space required by the Act. In the case of the "China"' there are 129 Asiatics with two spaces allotted to them, in each of which rather over the floor area per man required by the Imperial Act is provided, and the cubic capacity per man is ninety-two and ninety-four feet per man, as against the seventy-two feet provided by the statute. The "Carthage" is abroad, and I am not in possession of the particulars asked for in the question.

  WELSHPOOL TELEGRAPHIC ARRANGEMENTS.
  COLONEL PRYCE-JONES (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, how soon effect will be given to the report of the inquiry regarding the telegraphic arrangements at Welshpool and adjoining districts.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General regrets that owing to an oversight a reply has not been sent to a letter which the hon. Member addressed to him

  1445
  on this subject. The amount of business at Welshpool and in the adjoining districts is not sufficient to justify a direct wire to any of the great centres of trade; but it seems possible that by some re-arrangement of the wires in the neighbourhood an improvement in the service can be secured, and the Postmaster General will endeavour to have this carried out as soon as possible.

  POST OFFICE EXPENDITURE ON TELEPHONES.
  MR. KIMBER (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what progress has been made by the Post Office Department with the expenditure of the two millions of money voted for telephone purposes last session; when the Post Office will be able to supply the public with telephonic communication: whether he will state the terms on which the Post Office propose to give the public such communication; and whether the telephones of the Post Office will be placed in communication with those of the National Telephone Company.
  MR. HANBURY: Large contracts have already been made, and others will very shortly be concluded, for plant and underground wires involving an expenditure of about half a million pounds out of the one and a quarter million pounds which the London exchange will probably cost. Some delay has necessarily been caused by negotiation with the large number of vestries who, in the first instance, control the granting of way leaves, but these having now given their consent the work will he carried on at once over the whole of the large London area. The Post Office expect to afford telephonic communication in nearly the whole of the City area, the Strand and Charing Cross district, the whole of Westminster, Chelsea, Belgravia, South Kensington and Kensington to Notting Hill, West Kensington, Brompton, Fulham, Wimbledon, Putney, Barnes, and Mortlake, Kew, Richmond, Twickenham, Kingston, Norbiton, and Surbiton, Hammersmith, Turnham Green, and Chiswick, by the end of the year. I will have a map placed in the Tea Room showing this large district, and also the general plan of the wires in the whole of the London area. In view of the competition with the National Telephone Company, it would be obviously sunwise to disclose the rates to be charged
  1446
  until it is necessary to canvass for subscribers. There is no power to compel the National Telephone Company to allow intercommunication between their exchanges and that of the Post Office, but in view of the great importance of such intercommunication to the public, all reasonable steps will be taken to effect it, and the cooperation of the London County Council as the chief road authority may be of considerable assistance in bringing about that desirable result.

  MANCHESTER TOWN POSTMEN.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has under consideration the awarding of good conduct stripes to a number of Manchester town postmen, who formerly hold the positions of junior postmen, and who have had various interviews with the local postmaster, and sent a petition last September to the Postmaster General on the subject; and when will a decision be given and the stripes issued.
  MR. HANBURY: The matter referred to is still under consideration, but the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee with regard to junior postmen have already been fully carried out, and there is little if any prospect of being able to comply with the desire of the men in question.

  JAMAICA FRUIT TRADE.
  SIR JOSEPH SAVORY (Westmoreland,): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the contract for the conveyance of fruit by a line of steamers from Jamaica will be laid upon the Table.
  MR. HANBURY: The contract is not yet signed. It will probably be signed very shortly, and will then be laid before the House.

  QUEEN'S GATE POST OFFICE.
  SIR MICHAEL FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has received a communication from the Royal Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851 respecting the decision to place a post office on a site in Queen's Gate on land conveyed by the Commissioners on 31st March, 1890, to Her Majesty's Office of Works, which was released from the stipulations of the con-

  1447
  veyance of 1864 that the land comprised therein should be permanently used for the purposes of science and the arts, but was at the same time subjected to the restriction that it should not be used for trade or business or in any manner which might become an annoyance to the estate of the Commissioners or any of their tenants; and whether, a post office being a place used for trade or business, he will confer with the Royal Commissioners upon the subject.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has received no such communication, but he understands that one has been addressed to the First Commissioner of Works. He will be pleased to consider any representations which the Royal Commissioners may make to him as to the new post office which it is proposed to erect at South Kensington.

  TRUNK TELEPHONE IN WEST CLARE.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a trunk telephone between Limerick, Ennis, and West Clare can be established for the convenience of the inhabitants of those districts.
  MR. HANBURY: The National Telephone Company have a small exchange at Ennis, and the Postmaster General is not prepared to provide a trunk circuit without guarantee. The small amount of business which might be expected would not justify him in doing so under other conditions. There is no telephone exchange at any other place in West Clare.

  FORFARSHIRE SHERIFF CLERKSHIP.
  MR. CALDWELL (): I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the gentleman recently appointed to the sheriff clerkship of Forfarshire holds the appointments of clerk of the peace for Forfarshire and for the county of the city of Dundee; and whether he will be required to resign the two latter offices, as was done under similar circumstances by his predecessor.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative; to the second in the negative. It is quite usual for a sheriff clerk to hold the office of clerk of peace.

  SCOTTISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT.
  MR. CROMBIE (): I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Local Government Board has, under Section 30 (7) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, prescribed rules as to the publication of accounts; and, if so, whether they enforce the publication of a list of paupers, the relief given to each, and the salaries of poor law officers.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Local Government Board have not prescribed rules under the section referred to. That section, however, deals only with parish trusts, and could not authorise rules requiring publication of the items specified in the question.

  NEW QUAY HARBOUR, COUNTY CLARE.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the harbour at New Quay, County Clare, is almost unserviceable owing to the strong tidal current between the mainland and Aughenish Island, causing a deposit of rock and gravel; and whether he will see that steps are taken to repair this harbour, in view of the inconvenience caused by its present condition.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): The secretary of the county council reports that that body at their meeting held on Tuesday last directed the county surveyor to expend a sum of £30, out of an available sum of £60, towards clearing the harbour at New Quay.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions that more money shall be spent in the repair of this harbour?
  MR. ATKINSON: I have no power to give such instructions to the county council.

  ATHBOY MEDICAL OFFICER.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, as representing the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, will he explain on what grounds the Local Government Board have ordered the Trim Board of Guardians against their will to pay £2 2s. to the Athboy medical

  1449
  officer's substitute whilst that officer was attending on subpoena at the February Quarter Sessions of Trim, as witness on a civil bill for damages for assault by the schoolmaster of Ballinor on a boy attending school there; and whether, as the case will be heard again on appeal, the ratepayers have to pay that medical officer's substitute a second time if that officer has to attend on the appeal; and whether it is intended by the Government to allow the Local Government Board to continue to make the ratepayers chargeable with medical attendance in cases in which they are not concerned, or to pay for the substitutes of medical officers subpoenaed as witnesses.
  MR. ATKINSON: The Local Government Board have been advised that a medical officer compelled by subpoena to be absent from his district is temporarily incapacitated from performing his duties within the meaning of the Relief Act and Orders, and the board of guardians were bound, therefore, to make provision for the care of the sick poor during his absence by employing and paying a temporary substitute. If the dispensary medical officer is again compelled by subpoena to leave his district temporarily, it will be again necessary for the guardians to employ and pay a substitute to perform his duties. It is a matter of very rare occurrence for a board of guardians to have to incur expenses such as these.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN (): If the medical officer attends on a subpoena, does he not receive a fee for it?
  MR. ATKINSON: Yes, and in that case he would pay his substitute from his own pocket.

  IRISH LANGUAGE IN IRISH SCHOOLS.
  MR. M'CARTAN (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Board of Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have received a letter from the Gaelic League urging the desirability of conserving the Irish language in the schools in the interest of the poor people of Ireland, as is now done with the Welsh language in Wales with the approval of the Committee of Council on Education for Great Britain; whether he will say what answer has been sent; and if under the circumstances he will take the whole matter into favourable consideration.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): The Commissioners have received the letter referred to in the first paragraph. The matter is now under their consideration. They are the proper authorities to deal with it in connection with the revision and alteration of the school programme shortly to be carried out.

  NEWBLISS COURT-HOUSE.
  MR. MACALEESE (): I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that Clones Rural District Council No. I have passed a resolution condemning the practice of using the Newbliss court-house for party purposes; and that the Monaghan County Council have adopted the resolution of the Clones Rural Council calling for a discontinuance of the practice of holding periodical party meetings in the courthouse, and hoisting party flags on the building: and what steps do the Irish Executive propose to take in the circumstances.
  MR. ATKINSON: Resolutions, I understand, have been passed to the effect stated in the first paragraph. The practice of holding party meetings in and of displaying party flags from a building used as a courthouse in any part of Ireland is, in the view of the Government, most objectionable, and the magistrates concerned in this case who have already been communicated with in the matter concur in that opinion. Some doubt apparently exists in their mind as to their powers of control over the one room in the building which is used for the purposes of petty sessions. The Government will inquire further into the matter.

  KILKENNY LAND SUB-COMMISSION.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he can explain why there has not been a sitting of the Land Sub-Commission in Kilkenny for three years to deal with a large number of cases listed for the fixing of rent; and whether he can say when the Commission will sit.
  MR. ATKINSON: The hon. Member has been misinformed. The last sitting of a Sub-Commission in Kilkenny was in April, 1899, and not three years ago, as stated. A Sub-Commission will hold another sitting there in the course of a few months.

  IRISH RAILWAY AMALGAMATION BILL.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, as representing the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to a letter addressed by the Irish Board of Works to the Limerick Harbour Board warning that body not to incur any expense in connection with the opposition to the Great Southern and Western Railway Companies Amalgamamation Bill now before Parliament without the consent of the Board of Works, whether he is aware that the promoters of the Amalgamation Bill have been circulating a report that the Board of Works is in favour of their Bill; whether he is aware that the Limerick Corporation, Limerick Harbour Board, and all other representative bodies in Limerick City are representing the wishes of the citizens in opposing the proposed amalgamation; whether he is aware that the Limerick Harbour Board is a solvent body fully able to meet its liabilities; and whether he will see that no further action is taken in this matter by the Board of Works which might interfere in any way with the right of the Limerick Harbour Board to influence Parliament in opposition to a Bill now awaiting its consideration.
  MR. ATKINSON: This is a question that should properly be addressed to my right hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I will put it down for Monday.

  TOBACCO CULTIVATION IN IRELAND.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General what is the Act which prohibits the growing of tobacco in the United Kingdom, and whether, in the case of Ireland, a Bill for the repeal of such Act would be supported by the Government.
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (SIR RICHARD WEBSTER,): There are several Acts of Parliament affecting the question, but the one referred to by the hon. Member is probably 1 and 2 William IV., chapter 13, which revived the provisions of 12 Charles II. As to the last part of the hon. Member's question, I must refer him to my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Perhaps the Attorney General for Ireland will be kind enough to tell me.
  [No answer was given.]

  SALISBURY PLAIN MANOEUVRING GROUND—THE NETHERAVON ESTATE.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what was the nature and extent of the action which at the request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he, in conjunction with the First Lord of the Treasury, took to check the financial aspect of the question of the purchase of land by the War Office for manoeuvres on Salisbury Plain including the estate of Notheravon; did such action extend to any examination into the nominal or real rental of the property; did it extend to the estimation of the value of the property as compared with the price to be paid; did it extend to the nomination of one or both of the arbitrators, Mr. William Sturge, of Bristol, and Mr. Elias P. Squarey, of Salisbury, who fixed the price of Notheravon; and did it extend to any other properties besides Netheravon.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps I can best satisfy my hon. friend by stating the course pursued in the valuation and purchase of land by the War Office for manoeuvres on Salisbury Plain, including the estate of Netheravon. The selection of the land required was carried out by a Committee consisting of the Financial Secretary of the War Office, the Adjutant General, the Quartermaster General, and the Inspector General of Fortifications. The Committee dealt with all proposals referring to the acquisition of land and any questions arising therefrom, assisted by Messrs. Rawlence and Squarey, of Salisbury, who were selected to carry out the various negotiations on account of their local knowledge and experience. The valuations were made in all cases by Messrs. Rawlence and Squarey, and wherever the Committee thought it desirable a separate valuation was made on behalf of the War Office by Mr. Elwell, their professional surveyor. The Committee thought it desirable in the case of the Netheravon Estate, and Mr. Elwell valued it at £95,000. As regards this estate, it was considered, in view of 22 Geo. III., c. 45, and of the decided case of "Royse v. Birley," that if land belong-

  1453
  ing to a Member of Parliament was taken by agreement a question might be raised as to whether the transaction were not within the prohibition of the statute. Accordingly it was decided by the Committee that the purchase should be effected under the Defence Act, 1812, which authorises compulsory acquisition of land—a notice to treat under that Act was served on Sir Michael Hicks Beach and the case proceeded to arbitration to determine the compensation to be paid. Of the two arbitrators, one, Mr. Squarey, was selected by the Secretary of State for War, the other, Mr. Sturge, by Sir Michael Hicks Beach, and an umpire, Mr. C. Oakley, was appointed by the arbitrators in usual course. No difference of opinion, however, arose between the arbitrators as to the terms of the purchase, and the umpire's services were not required. The House will see that in these circumstances no question arose in which the intervention of the First Lord or of the First Lord of the Admiralty was called for.

  USE OF NORMAN FRENCH IN PARLIAMENTARY CEREMONIAL.
  MR. KIMBER (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury will he explain why the Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament is not given in the English language but in Norman French, a language which at this day is but imperfectly understood and by only a few of the people of this country. May I say that the question has been so altered since I presented it at the Table that the point I put in it is no longer identifiable by me. No doubt it has encountered one of those accidents which sometimes occur. But I will accept the question in the form in which it stands and ask leave to add a supplementary question.
  *MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member proposes, without appealing to me as to the alteration, to ask, in the form of a supplementary question, the part which was struck out, that is not the proper course to take.
  MR. KIMBER: I do not intend to do that. I only wish to ask whether the First Lord of the Treasury is aware that not only is the Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament given in Norman French, but that communications between the two Houses are made in that language until something unusual happens, when the
  1454
  individuals charged with the duty of making them are found unequal to the task.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I should like to ask, for the information of the House, whether the Clerks at the Table have authority to alter questions without communicating with the Member concerned?.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: May I ask whether, if the First Lord of the Treasury contemplates any change, he will substitute for Norman French the best language of all—namely, Irish?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The practice is that if a question is brought to the table which contains some matter or is put in a form which is not regular, the hon. Member concerned is, if possible, communicated with. Sometimes it is impossible to communicate with the hon. Member, and the change is one which the clerks at the table have every reason to believe he would give his assent to if it were shown to him. In these circumstances they very often take upon themselves to assume that he would rather the correction was made at once than that his question should be postponed in order that it might be submitted to him. But when the correction raises matter of importance they invariably, I think, submit it to him.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Would not the regular course, in that case, be to postpone the putting of the question until the Member has been communicated with?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I have already dealt with that point.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to the supplementary question put by my hon. friend behind me, I have to say that it is extremely probable that the amount of Norman French at the command of the officials of the House of Lords may not be equal to every emergency. As regards the question on the Paper, the fact that the Royal Assent is given in Norman French is surely a most interesting relic of antiquity, showing how far back our Parliamentary institutions go; and I feel convinced that, on reflection, my hon. friend himself would be the last person to desire to change it.
  MR. KIMBER: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that

  1455
  the use of Norman French was only reintroduced—after years of desuetude —in the worst days of the Stuarts, with other French customs from the Paris Court?
  [No answer was returned.]

  CIVIL SERVICE—REPORTS OF OFFICIALS ON SUBORDINATES.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government will extend to officers of all grades in the Civil Service similar regulations to those already in force in the Army, Navy, and Royal Marines, which require that an annual confidential report by superior officers upon a subordinate, which is of an adverse character and affects his fitness for his present position or for promotion to a higher one, shall be read verbatim to him by his superior officer; and whether, in the interests of justice, the Lords of the Treasury will direct, by a minute, the heads of Departments to communicate to a subordinate the result of a report which is held to prejudice his chances of further advancement in the Civil Service; and, if so, whether a copy of such minute of their Lordships will be laid upon the Table of the House at the same time that it is promulgated to Departments.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: An Order in Council of November, 1898, Section 20, provides that no annual increase of salary shall be allowed to a civil servant without a certificate from his immediate superior, countersigned by the head of his Department. If his immediate superior or the head of his Department declines to give a certificate, he is bound to state his reasons, and the official affected is entitled to know the objection.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the coarse followed should be the same as that followed in the military service?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; I think in substance the wishes of the hon. and gallant Member are fairly carried out, and I do not think it is necessary to modify the arrangement.

  THE COMPANIES BILL.
  MR. GALLOWAY (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is intended to take the Second Reading of the Companies Bill before Easter; and, if so, when.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope an opportunity of reading this Bill a second time may be found before Easter, but I cannot, of course, promise it.
  MR. GALLOWAY: Will notice be given of it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Waterford I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now fix a date for Committee of Supply on Civil Service Estimates; and whether, for the convenience of a number of Members, he can say that the date will not be before the 21st of March.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot give any date for moving the Speaker out of the chair on the Civil Service Estimates. But I think I may indicate, at all events, the extreme probability that we shall have to get the. Votes for the Navy and the Army before we ask the House to move the Speaker out of the chair. I have promised to give a week's notice of the date on which we shall do that.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE (): Can the First Lord of the Treasury state whether the Navy Estimates will be resumed tomorrow, and what the business will be on Monday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will put off till tomorrow any question about next week. With regard to to-morrow, I hope we shall finish Vote 1 to-day. I see no reason to doubt that. In that case we shall put down Supplementary Estimates first to-morrow, and Vote 10 second.
  MR. WARNER (): Will the Army Estimates be taken next week?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Very likely.

NEW BILLS.

  CHARITABLE LOANS (IRELAND).
  Motion made, and Question proposed— "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the Charitable Loan Societies

  1457
  (Ireland) Act, 1843."—(The Attorney General for Ireland.)
  MR. DILLON (): This Bill is in danger of becoming a hardy annual. It has been introduced now for two successive years, but the Government have made no effort to pass it into law. If the Bill were so drawn that it would do what is claimed for it, it would probably pass without any discussion whatever. A great many Members from the North of Ireland are deeply interested in this Bill, and I think we are entitled to ask for some statement of the policy the Government intend to pursue in the present session. Is the Bill to be again introduced, hung up, put off from day to day, and no attempt made to carry it through? There exists no desire to obstruct the Bill. It has been introduced to meet a most scandalous state of things, which has arisen entirely from the gross neglect by the Government of Ireland of their own business. These loan societies are not private ventures; they are societies instituted under a statute with sixty sections passed in 1843, which was taken by both debenture holders and borrowers to give the security of a careful Government inspection under which no abuse could possibly arise. But what has happened? For a long period of years these loan societies have been nests of the grossest possible abuse, and all rules have been set at defiance. Inasmuch as the loss is directly the result of the neglect of its duty by the Irish Government, some portion of the loss which must be incurred by borrowers and debenture holders ought to be borne by the public funds. Under this Bill great injustice will be done, and I do not see how it can be avoided unless the Government, come to the rescue. I desire to impress that view upon the Attorney General at the outset, and to ask that he will give reasonable notice to the whips of the Irish party so that those Members whose constituents are deeply interested in this matter can have an opportunity of fully discussing the proposal.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. G. W. Balfour.

  CHARITABLE LOANS (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Charitable Loan Societies (Ireland) Act, 1843," presented, and
  1458
  read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 12th March, and to be printed. [Bill 105.]

  ELECTORAL DISABILITIES (MILITARY SERVICE).
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): I beg to ask leave to introduce the Electoral Disabilities (Military Service) Bill, which has for its object that in cases where electoral qualifications have been obtained by residence on the part of any person in the Reserve, Militia, Yeomanry, or Volunteer' forces those qualifications should not be lost on account of the person's having gone out to serve in the present war. It is a very fair measure, and I beg to move.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES (): I have no doubt it is perfectly reasonable that when a man has obtained definite qualifications he should, if possible, not be disqualified by giving his services to the Crown in case, of war. But if it is reasonable in the case of those affected by this Bill, surely it is equally reasonable in the case of an ordinary soldier or sailor who has obtained electoral qualification by residence. Or take the case of a civil servant of the Crown. Why should he not be, relieved? No doubt a great number of civil officers have been sent out in regard to matters connected with what I might call the civil side of the military operations in South Africa. There are also the merchant sailors engaged in the transport service. In all these cases there is equally good ground for giving the relief which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to give to the special classes he has mentioned. I am not in the least objecting to that relief being given, but I rose to express my sense of the inequality that will be perpetrated if the relief is given to the classes proposed and refused to others equally deserving and giving equally good service to the Crown. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the cases I have mentioned when the Bill comes to be dealt with in detail.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill to remove electoral disabilities which may arise in the case of members of the Reserve, Militia, and Yeomanry Forces, and in the case of Volunteers by

  1459
  reason of absence on the Military Sendee of the Crown, ordered to be brought in by Secretary Sir Matthew White Ridley, Mr. Attorney General, and Mr. Jesse Collings.

  ELECTORAL DISABILITIES (MILITARY SERVICE) BILL.
  "To remove Electoral Disabilities which may arise in the case of members of the Reserve, Militia, and Yeomanry Forces, and in the case of Volunteers by reason of absence on the Military Service of the Crown," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 106.]

  SUPPLY [SECOND ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith, in the Chair.]

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1900-1901.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £5,527,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expenses of wages, etc., to officers, seamen and boys, coastguard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB (): I beg to move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £534,572, the total cost of the Royal Marine forces, which, as the House is aware, consists of nearly 4,000 artillery and 15,000 infantry. In starting, I am sure the First Lord will agree with me that their costly training to produce military efficiency is second to none, also that at sea the marines hold their own as gunners with their bluejacket comrades, and the artillery boat them at field gun competitions on shore. The original object for which this force was created—and it existed before there was any standing navy at all was to man and fight ships, but particularly to land and fight on shore. At present, I presume the object of maintaining this force is, or ought to be, to fight the ships, giving the fullest co-operation of their naval comrades, and to fight as land troops on shore. It is, shortly, a purely military body, with naval training superadded. The Admiralty spend most
  1460
  money and time on producing, military efficiency, as regards both the artillery and the infantry, and giving officers and men a perfect knowledge of military work on shore. That course is preliminary to their naval course at headquarters on shore, and later on board Her Majesty's ships. In regard to the other part of the naval service, the Admiralty properly spend the greater amount of money and time in training, in the most perfect way, the naval officers and seamen for sea service, and after that the naval officers and seamen get a smattering—nothing more—of military knowledge. The important fact to remember is that under these conditions less injury is done to the efficiency of Her Majesty's ships by landing the marine portion than by landing the naval officers and seamen portion of their complements. A ship cannot go to sea without its full complement of naval officers and seamen.; but, although it would not be perfect, it can go to. sea having, necessarily perhaps, left its marine detachment on shore. The second point is, unless the training is altogether a sham. and a delusion, that when a naval force has to operate on shore, or to assist the army, the artillery and infantry marines are better fitted for the work than the naval officers and seamen can be. In raising this question there is always the danger of being accused of running one interest against another, but I can assure the Committee that this is not my desire. The only desire I have in adopting the line I have taken is to secure the efficiency of Her Majesty's Fleet and of the naval service. In all questions connected with the naval service it must always be borne in mind that an admiral must be paramount in his fleet, and a captain must be paramount on his ship, and that overriding all other considerations appertaining to the Navy is—the efficiency of the ships. With these simple principles in mind let us see what has happened in South Africa. The time has not yet come to criticise certain events and, certain matters at the front; it would not be opportune, it would not be right, to do so at this moment, and I do not intend to. go very far below the surface. I shall take a proper opportunity by and by of; bringing certain matters before the House. Meantime, with the news we have received, to-day with so much delight and satisfaction respecting the relief of Lady-

  1461
  smith, we cannot forget the splendid service rendered by the naval guns, nor can we forget that a cause of the great and important gain to our whole position in South Africa was the inventive genius of Captain Percy Scott. It would be wrong of me to proceed further without saying that much, because this is not a question of Navy versus Marines or Marines versus Navy; it is a question of the public interest, of the welfare of Her Majesty's service. There is no question that the assistance the Fleet was able to give the Army by landing those guns at the nick of time did alter the face of the whole situation. But we must not be carried away by what strikes us as picturesque and unusual. The fact of naval officers and seamen doing gallant and brilliant service on shore as they have done naturally and rightly awakens enthusiasm throughout the length and breadth of the country. But I wish to point out that underneath the surface there are very grave considerations as to naval policy and practice. It has been a developing and growing policy to take naval officers and seamen out of their ships to fight on shore, and latterly it has come to taking naval officers and seamen, without whom the ship cannot go to sea, leaving the marines on board. I shall show what has happened in South Africa. Lot me take two passages from the printed Statement of the First Lord. He says—
  "A battalion of marines took part in the Army drills and manoeuvres on Salisbury Plain during the month of July.''
  That was done by orders of the Admiralty, for what? To perfect the officers and men in tactics, and to make them efficient for acting with the Army on shore. The cost of sending that battalion was met out of the Naval Votes, and, of course, no one can deny that so long as this force is maintained it is of the utmost importance its officers and men should be trained to the greatest point of perfection in all matters connected with land warfare. Then comes a bald statement under the heading "Mobilisation," to the effect that—
  "Detachments consisting approximately of 98 officers and 1,192 seamen and marines have been landed from the ships at the Cape for temporary service with the land forces in South Africa."
  I must press my right hon. friend for a little more information on this point. When 98 officers and over 1,000 men were
  1462
  taken out of a small squadron and sent hundreds of miles up country we are entitled to know exactly the position in which Her Majesty's ships were left. I may explain that the figures I am about to give I obtained in this way: for the ships I took the Navy List for February, which I presume gives an accurate statement of the ships in the Cape Squadron: and then for the complements of the ships I turned to Brassey's "Naval Annual." From those calculations I conclude that the aggregate complements of Her Majesty's ships at the Cape cannot be more than 4,200, so that with nearly 1,200 officers and men taken away on shore those ships were only very partially manned. The total number of executive and marine officers in that squadron, from post-captains to midshipmen, is only 123, and if 98 of those officers are landed it leaves the squadron in a very serious position, looking at it from the point of view from which I approach this question—namely, the efficiency and readiness of Her Majesty's ships for immediate service. This is too serious a matter to be passed over without any further explanation from the Admiralty. I should like to ask were all the marines landed from that squadron; were no naval officers or bluejackets landed until the supply of the marines was exhausted: were any naval officer's and bluejackets landed from any ship leaving marines on board; and, in view of the fact that the "Powerful" and the "Terrible" cost a vast sum of money and were built for the special purpose of patrolling and covering long distances at sea, we are entitled to know exactly why it is that those ships have been in port or only moving a few miles ever since they arrived on the coast of Africa. The Committee are entitled to know what condition these cruisers were in with regard to their complements each week since the beginning of the war.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): That is a large order.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: It is a large order, but I take it that if in any week it turned out that a ship was without its full complement of naval officers and seamen and had marines on board my case is complete. It must not be forgotten that if the Admiralty have done what I say they are only following recent

  1463
  precedent, because, in the previous Boer War, sea officers and seamen were landed while the whole of the marines were kept on board. If we can get an explicit answer on the points I have raised I do not think I shall have brought this matter before the Committee in vain. I also want to ask whether naval officer's and seamen were sent out from home to fill the vacancies caused by naval officers and seamen having left their ships and gone up country, while marine officers and men out there were cooped up in those ships and not landed at all. It is commonly reported that when the crisis came in South Africa the Admiralty were asked to send a battalion of marines to the Cape.
  MR. GOSCHEN: No.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: At all events, my right hon. friend, in one of his brilliant speeches, said in defence—
  MR. GOSCHENmade an explanation which was inaudible in the Press Gallery.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: But my right hon. friend pointed out in answer to a rumour that you could not send a force of marines to the Cape from home because, if you had to mobilise the Fleet, the ships would be inefficient without their marine complements. But if the right hon. Gentleman was able to send reinforcements of naval officers and seamen to take the place of those who had gone up country, I cannot see why he could not have sent the marines. If this House provides an amount of money to furnish the Admiralty with a great service of artillery and infantry for sea and for land service in time of war, and most of that money is spent on training for laud service, we ought to know whether the Admiralty are not misusing the forces, or wasting that money by misusing it. I particularly raise this question in order to obtain a clear and explicit statement of the policy of the Admiralty with regard to these landing parties from ships. There is nothing in the regulations as to what are to be the arrangements of the Admiral if he has to land a force. The Admiral uses his discretion. This marine force has been trained for a special purpose, and my contention is that when war breaks out that force should be applied to that special purpose. I am fully and firmly convinced that the gallant Admiral at the Cape was perfectly right in rendering every assist-
  1464
  ance he could to the Army. But my point is, Was that assistance given in such a manner as to least and not most impair the efficiency of Her Majesty's ships? Clearly, the forces that can best be spared from the ships are the marine officers and men; and equally clearly, the forces which can least be spared are the naval officers and seamen. I ask the First Lord specifically why there are no regulations laid down on this point; if there are such regulations, did the Admiral follow them? Is it not case that officers and men of the marine force have been kept on board while naval officers and seamen have been landed? Every sensible man must applaud the Admiral for sending 4·7 guns and 12pounders up country, but the point is the kind of men who were sent with them. The service of the 4·7 guns and the 12pounders is part of the ordinary training of the private in the infantry marines, to say nothing of the artillery. It is important to remember that. What I want to bring out is that instead of sending post captains and other officers away from their ships, the Admiral should simply have sent a subaltern and twenty-five infantry marines with each gun. The prize returns show that even these infantry marines are efficiently trained in the use of these guns, and beat the seamen at them at sea. Therefore, why are there no regulations to prevent your ships being rendered inefficient by post captains, commanders, and lieutenants being sent to do the work of subalterns and infantry marines? In order to illustrate to the Committee the differences of training of naval and marine officers, and seeing the uses made of it, by the light of what is happening in South Africa, I will give the simple facts of the career of a naval officer on the one hand, and of a marine artillery officer on the other. This marine artillery officer had to take part in the public competition for the usual entrance examination for an officer of the Royal Engineers or the Royal Artillery. He passed successfully in midsummer, 1893. He was then sent to the Naval College for every sort of scientific instruction. Here [exhibiting papers] are four closely written, two foot square pages of the highly scientific subjects in which he had to pass. Having passed through the Naval College after two years close study and repeated examinations, he went to the gunnery ship

  1465
  "Excellent." There he went through, under naval officers, a course of naval gunnery. That he passed, and then went to the torpedo school, and passed through a course of instruction under naval officers. He was then, and not till then, fit to join headquarters for his training at the Marine Artillery Barracks. He then had to go through an elaborate course of infantry, musketry, and field artillery instruction, a course of siege guns and guns of position, and repository and armament courses. This particular officer was specially distinguished in field artillery. He completed his course just four years after he passed the competitive examination. He was then immediately embarked, and later proceeded to South Africa. On his ship were 12-in., 9-in., and other guns, but he had nothing to do with the general gunnery of the ship. The 12-in. guns were, I am informed, under the control of two naval lieutenants brought in from the merchant service a few months previously. That was his experience of the Admiralty system of using his long and costly artillery training when on board ship. He was suddenly despatched with the naval brigade from Simon's Bay with forty of his highly trained gunners without a gun, while the naval portion of the brigade consisted of eight naval officers, forty-eight men and two guns. So that you have this position, that this officer, having gone through all this training to fit him for this particular work, in the hour of danger, when the work in which he was trained had to be done, is sent with his forty equally well trained gunners with no gun, in a so called naval brigade in which the total marines, artillery and infantry, were to the total seamen in the proportion of five to one. The naval gun detachment was eight naval officers to two guns, or two officers per gun. The whole brigade was found at Graspan in that position. There was still this marine artillery officer with his forty gunners and no gun, but a change had been made, for there were 100 bluejackets with twelve naval officers and four guns. There was a naval officer in command of the whole, so-called, naval brigade, a gallant gentleman, as bold as a lion and as fearless as they make them, but wholly and entirely ignorant of land warfare. Under him was a major of marine infantry, who had passed his examination
  1466
  at Aldershot or elsewhere for his lieutenant-colonelcy, and knowing how to command three arms of the service. The young marine artillery officer and his gunners, with all their artillery training, were used, in accordance with Admiralty custom, as infantry, and the officer and most of his gunners were shot storming the position as infantry. That was the case of a young marine artillery officer used as the Admiralty are using this artillery force now. Lot me give the brief career and sort of training of a naval officer, this marine officer's superior, but absolutely ignorant of military war, who was with that brigade, and who was taken away from his ship where he might have been useful. I do not know when he became a cadet, but he was acting sub-lieutenant on 14th March, 1890. His name then disappears from the Navy List, and as far as my inquiries go it was because he failed to pass.
  MR. GOSCHENwas understood to ask the name of the officer.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: If you must have the name, it was—[inaudible].
  MR. GOSCHEN: He was not in command.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: He was not put in command, for a post captain, equally ignorant of land warfare, was; but if his naval superiors had been shot he would have been in command, and under those circumstances would have commanded this marine artillery officer, had he, lived, according to Admiralty regulations.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am sure my hon. and gallant friend does not wish to misrepresent the case. I cannot remember at the moment whether this particular gallant officer was shot or not. If he was not shot, was it not Major Marchant who was put in command when the other superior officers had been shot?
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: Perhaps I have not made myself clear. I am quite aware that when everybody senior to Captain Marchand was killed or wounded he would command, and I am equally aware that Captain Marchand brought the remnant of the brigade out of action, and that three days afterwards he was superseded in the command of the brigade by another naval officer knowing nothing about land warfare or

  1467
  tactics. What I was saying was that the naval officer to whom I was alluding reappeared in a supplementary list with seniority in 1895, when the marine artillery officer was only half way through his artillery training. The first ship on which he was employed then was a coastguard ship; after nine months he was transferred to a sea-going ship, and then he was sent to the front. Those are the two histories. My point is this: you have this naval officer with no military, and very scanty naval, training, landed on shore, to the great detriment of his ship, and sent to the front as the superior of officers trained for military work, while the officers trained for military work are really loft out of the chance of command altogether. This is a matter concerning the lives of men and the efficiency of ships and of the whole service, and I extremely regret that, knowing what I do, I am forced into the unpleasant position of having continually to bring the misapplication of this force forward until there are proper regulations made in the interest of the public service, and not in favour of any particular class of officers. I beg to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item D (Royal Marines) be reduced by £591,965."—(Sir John Colomb.)
  ADMIRAL FIELD (): I regret very much that my hon. and gallant friend has raised this matter in the way he has done. Some people would think from his observations that there was jealousy in the naval service between the seamen and the marines. I hope there is no foundation for that, and that that is not the impression my hon. and gallant friend intended to convey, but certainly his remarks tended in that direction. Seamen and marines love one another as comrades, and are proud to live together. If I accept my hon. friend's premiss, perhaps I should be bound to accept his conclusions. But I do not accept his premiss. His main premiss was that the marines are better fitted for military work on shore than seamen. I must first ask for a definition of military work. If what is meant is military work performed by soldiers in a military capacity, such as marching up in solid ranks and assaulting a position, or lying on their stomachs and firing at the enemy, no doubt they are
  1468
  better. But if what is meant is fighting naval guns on shore, I challenge the statement, and say they are not better fitted to discharge that military duty. I object to draw a contrast between the abilities of seamen and marines on board ship; they act together and they Jive together; but my gallant friend forced me to do so, and I say that the seamen are more fitted to deal with naval guns on shore than are the Royal Marines.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: But field guns.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: They were ship guns that were landed, not field guns mounted on ordinary artillery carriages; and I say that seamen are eminently fitted to handle those guns. It is no new thing for seamen to be employed alongside of troops on shore. Sir George White himself made a strong appeal for a naval brigade in Burma, and Napoleon in all his wars with Austria had a great band of seamen of the guard commanded by an admiral. When an appeal was made by the general in command at Ladysmith for assistance, it was the duty of the Admiral to send up the best assistance he could. My hon. and gallant friend seems to think that only subalterns ought to have been sent.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: On account of the efficiency of the ship.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: Never mind the efficiency of the ship, Sir. There was no fear of the ship or of our supremacy at sea, and it is all nonsense to talk about that. What in the name of common sense is the good of stickling for the keeping up of a ship's efficiency when there is no enemy on the horizon? I hope my hon. and gallant friend will excuse me for speaking so hotly. I think that the Admiral acted properly in landing the brigade, and also that some marines were landed with it.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: Not for Ladysmith.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: If that is so I am sorry, but I believe the usual practice when a naval brigade is landed is to allow the Marines to share the distinction, and that a proper proportion is included. If, as my hon. and gallant friend says, forty of the Royal Marine Artillery were under Lord Methuen at Graspan without guns, I cer-

  1469
  tainly think it was a mistake, although it was one that was probably made from the best motives. I call it a waste of splendid material to send men to handle rifles who are especially fitted to handle more powerful weapons, but if that did take place I think the Marine Artillery were afterwards landed to work the 4·7 guns. It will also not be denied that they joined in the storming party under Lord Methuen's direction and displayed splendid courage and dash, led as they were by a splendid officer. We are proud of such men, but I must express my regret that such magnificent material should have been used in storming trenches at all. They are not drilled for that purpose; they are too valuable. I can quite understand the general in command thinking that if they were left behind it would be very hard lines on them, and that he therefore put them in the front line—the post of honour. I regret, however, that seamen who are not drilled to lie down on their stomachs and fire from behind stones should have been used for that purpose, but in emergencies no doubt recourse is had to measures which would not be carried out on ordinary occasions. The whole fighting in South Africa is not ordinary fighting, and we are proud to think that our seamen had a hand in it and shared in its glory. General Buller in his last despatch also praised very highly the action of the naval gunners.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: And the Colonial Naval Volunteers, who worked the guns with them.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: Precisely. My hon. and gallant friend in raising this question drew a parallel between the career of a marine officer and the career of a sailor officer, and some of his remarks raised rather painful feelings. He said that sailor officers, even captains, know nothing about military operations. My hon. and gallant friend went a little too far. He will not deny that nearly all our officers have passed through the gunnary school, where they learned how to handle field batteries and field guns. I never yet knew any captain in command of a naval brigade who would not leave the marine officers in command of their own men. There must be, of course, a superior officer, and if he is landed he must discharge his duty. In one engagement during the Indian Mutiny the senior military officer was killed,
  1470
  and that magnificent sailor, Captain Peel, had to take command; but he immediately said, "Go on with your own men; I am only nominally in command"; but he could not abdicate his position as senior officer. My hon. and gallant friend complains that eight naval officers were landed with forty-eight seamen and two guns, but no one would grudge young middies hearing the whizz of the bullet and seeing active service. Then he complains that more naval officers than marine officers were landed. But, of course, there are more naval officers on board a man-of-war than marine officers, the numbers being laid down by regulation, and I do not think it would be beneficial to increase the marine officers in time of peace, though in active service no doubt work might be found for them. Therefore I do not think my hon. and gallant friend has made out any case for casting aspersions on the admiral in command.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: I never did cast them.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: My hon. and gallant friend condemned someone for the landing of this brigade, and, of course, the admiral must be responsible. I assume he endeavoured to do justice to the hon. corps under his command, but the suggestion that all marines should have been landed is most unfair: that would have created gross discontent throughout the whole service. It would be unreasonable to demand it. I think with my hon. and gallant friend that the Marine Artillery should not have been landed without guns: still, without an explanation from the senior officer I am not prepared to condemn him. I have had some experience of landing parties, and I have never yet seen an atom of friction between the marines and the bluejackets. They work as brothers and accept the situation as they find it. The marines are sea, soldiers, and are a splendid body of men of whom we all are proud, and the Navy would be very much weaker without them. I hope my hon. and gallant friend will accept in good part all I have said. During the last three years I have pressed strongly on the Admiralty that marines should be treated as soldiers when on shore, and that they should have the full rations granted to soldiers. I have not succeeded in my aim, but the marines have got an addition to their pay of 2d. per day, for which

  1471
  I am grateful. I presume it is useless to ask for more. I suppose it is the Treasury and not the Naval Lords that are to blame. There is one other point which I wish to point out to my right hon. friend. When a soldier is sent to the front his wife is allowed a separation allowance, but when a marine is sent to the front his lodging allowance is stopped, and his wife is deprived of 6d. a day. I think that is very hard lines. I am aware that this is a grievance that the men feel as a great hardship, because when a marine is at the front his wife is 3s. 6d. a week worse off than if he were at home. I earnestly press the matter on my right hon. friend in the hope that something may be done. He told us that he was not prepared to make any addition, but I hope he will reconsider his decision.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY (): I should be very sorry to interfere in the quarrel between the sailors and the marines, and I certainly shall not attempt to do so. But I cannot understand the speeches just made by my two hon. and gallant friends. They appear to have been arguing as to whether the discretion of the Admiral in charge of a station should or should not be limited, in circumstances similar to those we recently had in Durban. I feel quite certain that the First Lord of the Admiralty will not listen for a moment to any such suggestion, and that the discretion of the Admiral in command will continue to be, as it is now, quite unfettered as to the manner in which he should distribute sailors and marines, having regard to the necessities of the moment. There are two points in connection with the manning question to which I respectfully ask my right hon. friend's attention. The first of these is as to the provision for stokers. When a seaman after twelve years service re-engages, he re-engages on a higher scale of pay—I think an increase of 2d. per day—
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that the question before the Committee relates to the marines, a reduction having been moved upon that particular item.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Then, Sir, I shall ask leave to raise the question later.
  *MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER (): I venture to detain the Committee
  1472
  under rather depressing circumstances in order to direct attention to a matter of very serious moment. It is the present position of the corps of Royal Marines. I think the First Lord of the Admiralty will not accuse me of not being sensible of the spirit of subordination and the spirit of camaraderie which are the great motive springs in any service, and especially in the Navy. I certainly should not think of taking the strong measure of making an appeal of this kind if I were not convinced by long experience that the time is come when such an appeal is not only justifiable but is absolutely necessary. I venture to repeat what I intimated in this House on previous occasions, that there is a feeling of discontent existing in the minds of officers of the corps of Royal Marines which is so grave and so widespread that it would be folly to ignore it. I venture also to express the belief that it is possible that my right hon. friend himself—though I readily admit he sympathises with all grievances which have a real basis and with which he is acquainted—is not, perhaps, as well acquainted as I and some others happen to be with the extent and depth of this feeling. I repeat, Sir, I have never asked an officer, or a soldier, or a seaman, whether he had a grievance; I have never encouraged anyone in Her Majesty's Service to dilate upon any grievance he thought he might possess: I do not think that that is the business of any civilian or any Member of Parliament, but I have during the last ten years had the privilege of conversing and corresponding with hundreds of officers, and I say that what I have heard and what I have read in correspondence is calculated to make me reflect very seriously. I need hardly say that coming from the corps of the Royal Marines every complaint has been made in subdued tones, and with that absolute devotion to the interests of the service which has always characterised the corps, and I should feel very little encouraged to pursue this matter if I were not convinced in my own mind that not only is this feeling justifiable, but that under the circumstances it is absolutely inevitable. And believing that the conditions which created it are calculated to perpetuate it, I now appeal to the First Lord of the Admiralty to consider whether the time has not come to alter those conditions. An immense change

  1473
  has come over the relations between the naval branch of the combatant service and the Royal Marine branch. It has been already pointed out to the committee that an enormous part of the work of the seamen proper has gone. Crossing royal yards and the handling of sailing ships are things of the past, and every man who is acquainted with Her Majesty's ships must be aware that a large number of duties are now capable of being performed by either seamen or Royal Marines indifferently. That in itself has produced a new situation, and I go further and say that the sailor with his extraordinary energy, his desire for effective work and his power to do it, has not been content to abandon one species of work without taking up another, and he has claimed for himself, and is still daily claiming for himself, the right to perform what I may call strictly military duties hitherto performed by the marines. It is far from me to say that he does not perform those duties as he performs all other duties, very well; but the fact is one which has to be considered in looking at the situation which now exists. I know that naval officers do not as a body share the views which I have expressed. I have the greatest possible and most sincere respect for the opinions of naval officers—I should be a very unwise person if I had not but I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that they are a little disqualified from forming an independent judgment on this matter. I have talked to naval officers on the question of the duties of marine officers on board ships, and they made replies to me, replies which were so obviously bond fide, and with the certainty that they depended upon real and not on sham considerations, that I could only marvel how much men could be misled when incapable of looking at things from an outside standpoint. I have been told by naval officers that it was inconceivable that marine officers could undertake certain duties. I have been told that they had always been performed by naval lieutenants, and that the suggestion that they should be discharged by marine officers was absurd. Naturally men brought up under a particular system associate the performance of particular duties with particular ranks and requirements. But these things are accidental, not essential, and until their accidental side is recognised and the true relations between the
  1474
  various members of a ship's company have been restored we shall see the continuance of the feeling to which I have referred. It would be wrong of me to enter into the details of the view which I know exists, but after the general statement which I have made I think I may refer to one or two statements which have reached me on this subject. One marine officer writes—
  "After over nineteen years service I. realise, as we all do, that we are passing through a most critical period in the history of the corps; and whereas under previous heartburnings and snubs we refrained from complaining oven in mess among ourselves, in order to avoid disheartening the younger officers commencing their careers, yet now we can discuss and talk of nothing else besides the bitter uselessness of our position and the fruitless results of the labours of our officers, non-commissioned officers, and men. If Her Most Gracious Majesty could only know ! We are poor and untitled men and have no influence."
  Another writes—
  "We feel deeply the hardships of not being; able to lead our own men, and on the men's part of not being led by their own officers."
  I submit to the First Lord of the Admiralty that the complaint is well founded. Let me try and explain to him what I conceive it to be. We have now in the Royal Marine Corps 18,500 officers and men existing on a basis absolutely different from that on which any other corps in Her Majesty's service stands. The officers are deprived of almost every advantage secured to officers in every other branch of the service. I propose to. substantiate that statement. In the first place you ask an officer to enter the Royal Marines with the absolute certainty that he is entering on a career which has no. prizes for him. He has no hope of obtaining that position of dignity and authority in the service which every man in every other branch is able to attain. I will justify that statement. I was looking, the other day, into what is the relative position of the officers of the other branches of the service. It is well known that if you take away from the personnel of the Royal Navy the non-combatants, the engineers, and the Royal Marines, there are 35,000 men who are serving in the strictly naval department, as against 18,500 in the Royal Marines. Now, what is the chance of promotion of a midshipman in the Royal Navy? At the present moment there are seventy-three admirals on the Active List, and

  1475
  of these thirty are in active employments. In addition to that there are the posts of commanders, post captains, captains in the Steam Reserve ashore, etc. As to the Royal Marines, you have a body of 18,500 men with a large number of officers; but out of them all how many do the Committee suppose are employed as generals on the active service? One single officer ! And how is he employed? He is seated on a stool in a "two pair back" in Northumberland Avenue doing clerk's office work. That is not a prospect to attract any officer to the service. You ought to give a greater prospect of advancement to the officers of the Royal Marines. But that is not nearly all. When an officer of the Royal Marines is actually serving you put him in a position which is absolutely humiliating. You deprive him of the command over his own men. I have been often on ships which carried many Royal Marines, and found that an officer of that corps is the fifth wheel in the coach—a man who, by the rules of the service, is condemned to be practically an idler; and so painful is the situation in which he is placed that even the ordinary attributes of an officer on sea or land are denied him. He is not qualified to sit on a court-martial in which his own brother officer's or his own men are concerned—which is absurd. When a Naval Brigade goes into action, the Royal Marines, whatever they do, have no place in the Gazette as Royal Marines, but are reported as part of the Naval Brigade, whether they form a large or a small portion of that brigade, or however important their services may be. The Royal Marines are without any representation on the Board of Admiralty; and, in fact, I believe that is the reason for a great many of the grievances of which they justly complain. They are in a position which has been described to me by one of their number as being "the only class of men in this country who cannot be tried by their peers." Not only that, but they cannot be represented when on trial, as it is most important they should be, by men of their own class. I ask hon. Members in this House, and my countrymen outside, whether they regard these arrangements as being fair and just, and I put to them this test: whether they would desire to see one of their own sons entering a profession subject to these limitations. The First Lord will do me the justice to admit that I
  1476
  have said nothing about the non-employment of the Royal Marines during the present war: but I do think that it would have been a politic and wise act if one battalion of Royal Marines or a separate unit of the Royal Marine Artillery had been employed. I entirely appreciate what the First Lord said, and I give full weight to the consideration, that it would be a very unwise thing, in the present state of Europe, to deplete the Royal Marine Divisions of men who are necessary to form the complement of the ships of the Navy in case of war. But I think more might have been done than has been done to give the Royal Marines a chance of service in South Africa, What I complain of is the whole system of treatment of the Royal Marines, which is not a question of this war, but a question of the past and the future. I believe honestly it would be far better for the Royal Marines if they could be transferred bodily to the Army, and taken clean away from the Navy, and used as garrisons at ports and coaling stations all over the world. I do not desire to see the marines separated from the Navy I should like to see duties assigned to the Royal Marines on board ship which would make them self-respecting members of the military community, of which they are compelled to form a part. I should like, when I go to sea in one of Her Majesty's ships, to see Royal Marine officer's as important as naval officers. But I see no signs of that change being made, and I ask that the only other alternative may be adopted, namely, that the administration, which, hitherto, has absolutely failed to perceive or to acknowledge the grievances of the Royal Marines, should cease to take any interest in them at all. I should hand them over to some other branch of the administration which would do them more justice. The Royal Marines really do deserve more consideration, and I have no hesitation in saying that, go through the world where you may, you will not find a corps equal to them for the purposes for which they are supposed to be used—that is, as a fighting force on sea or land with small arms and with artillery. I do not think it will be said that the Royal Marines do not desire greater opportunities because they are not fit to fulfil higher responsibilities; but if you are going, for all time, to limit the oppor-

  1477
  tuniities of these officers and deprive them of any advancement whatever, such as their comrades in the other branch of the services receive, you will undoubtedly in time only get a class of officers who are unable to obtain admission into the Naval branch of the Navy or into the Army. That is not a highly desirable result. You have at present, in both the Royal Marines and the Royal Marine Artillery, men qualified in every possible way to perform their duties and of high scientific attainments; but you are wasting their services. The only way you make use of their services is when you exercise the unfortunate charity which is sometimes shown for their benefit. I am told that the Royal Marine officers are not badly off; that they are given a billet here and a billet there. That, no doubt, is a very good thing; but these are not the prizes of the profession, and you cannot expect the best professional work from a man when the only chance of reward he has comes to him almost by accident and as a sort of charity. I have said nothing about the men in the Royal Marines. At present the corps is getting a great number of recruits, and the standard has been raised; but I think it is worth consideration whether you will continue to get the men, in view of the fact that the condition of the private soldier of the Line is considerably better than that of a Royal Marine. It is a very good thing to increase the emoluments of the soldiers of the Line, but not a good thing, if you put the Royal Marine at a disadvantage. At the present moment a Royal Marine on shore, on leave or on duty, is at a distinct disadvantage compared with a soldier of the Line. The Line soldier on leave receives 1s. 6d. a day, the Royal Marine 1s. 5d., and the difference between the daily pay of the Royal Marine and the soldier of the Line on duty on shore is actually 2d.
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present (Dr. TANNER, Cork County, Mid). House counted, and forty Members being found present,
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (continuing): I am really not speaking for the pleasure of hearing my own voice, but because I am under a pledge to perforin what I consider a duty, and I have only now a few words to say, but I should like, for my own justification, to say that the daily pay of a Royal Marine is 1s. 2d., with messing allowance of 3d., or a total
  1478
  of 1s. 5d. The daily stoppages are for meat and bread 4½d. and groceries 2½d., or 7d. in all, leaving a net daily pay of 10d. The Army soldier's daily pay is 1s., messing allowance 3d., total 1s. 3d. The stoppages for groceries, &c., are 3d., leaving a net daily pay of 1s.—a credit balance of 2d. a day compared with the Royal Marine. But that is not a matter which I make the substance of my appeal to the First Lord. My appeal is for common justice and fairness in dealing with this very gallant body of officers in the Royal Marines. I am quite positive that I have a good case for them, and I am appealing for men who have absolutely no representation at all at the Admiralty or the War Office, and who have practically no advocates in this House except the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth and myself. I think it would be a shame if the standing disadvantages from which these men suffer should be allowed to be perpetuated, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord if he would consider the proposal I venture to make to him—whether it would not be possible to refer the question of the position of the officers of the Royal Marines to any impartial Committee he likes. I would only stipulate that on that Committee or Board there should be a considerable element of professional opinion.
  MR. GOSCHEN: What for?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman has not been attending to me. I suggested that there is a real case for inquiry, and that, in order to remove all doubts, the position of the officers of the Royal Marines should be referred to a board or committee. There is a feeling abroad that you are doing a most serious wrong to a very gallant body of men, and I would refer the matter with the greatest pleasure to any six civilians whatever. If that were done I would undertake in five minutes to prove that injustice is being done to these men. This is a serious question, and should be regarded always from the point of view of professional efficiency. But it has never been found to be true in this or any other country, that professional efficiency can be obtained by professional injustice. It is because you treat the officers of the Army and Navy justly that they are contented and loyal. There have been times when you have not treated these officers justly, until it was

  1479
  dinned into the ears of the Departments and this House so that their complaints could not he misunderstood. The officers of the Royal Marines have the same claim to full and fair consideration, though they have not the same representation in this House as those of the Army and Navy.
  *CAPTAIN PHILLPOTTS (Devonshire,): I do not propose to take more than a few moments of the time of the House, hut having heard several remarks made by the hon. Members for Great Yarmouth and West Belfast, I should like to say a few words with regard to the Royal Marines. No one has a greater admiration for that body than myself, and the condition as regards these officers is simply hopeless. A man has no career after he attains the rank of captain or major, but at the same time I do not see myself how the evil is to be remedied. Although it has been suggested that the "marine" officers are at a disadvantage with naval officers, because they are not qualified to sit on a naval court-martial, and although that grievance occupies a great deal of attention, I fail to see a practical way in which it could be dealt with on a Vote in the Committee of Supply. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth alluded to certain officers and marines now serving on the South African station, being left on board their ships whilst bluejackets were employed on shore. I would just say that most of those who have been employed on shore have been landed for the purpose of working the bigguns that have been lent by the ships. Now, although the marines have been drilled in field gun drill they have never been trained to work the naval broadside gun on shore. When a marine is ordered for service on shore he is landed as an artillery or light infantry man, and is armed with his rifle, bayonet, and the usual equipment. The bluejacket is told off to attend his gun and has his cutlass and revolver, the arms which could be carried whilst he is dragging his gun on shore. It would be a manifest injustice to take away the arms of the bluejackets and hand them to the marines when there was a prospect of using them. I should be only too glad to see the marines have a better chance of distinguishing themselves, but I regret that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth should have stated the case as he did. The case of the marines is a very hard one, and the officers are often debarred
  1480
  from distinguishing themselves before the enemy. I wish that great evil could be remedied, but I do not think it is to be remedied by putting the marine officer in a false position on board ship. Whatever may be done to improve the position of the marine officer, I hope it will not take that form. The career open to the marine officer is not such as would tempt any smart youngofficer,though it is difficult to say how it could be improved. The marine officer was not under the War Office, but the Admiralty, and the opportunity of seeing service in the field was very small. Applications for their services are only made by the War Office in cases of emergency. In times of peace, and when there is no particular demand on the War Office, undoubtedly the marines are left out in the cold, and I do think it would be a very great advantage to the service if something could be done to give these highly-trained officers a better chance of distinguishing themselves. At the same time, I do not think it would be desirable to put them in a false position as regards the Navy. Much has been said about marine officers not being able to sit on naval courts-martial. I wonder if hon. Members have considered the conditions under which naval courts-martial are formed. In the first place the officer who orders the court-martial to be held must have a special commission empowering him to give that order. That officer nominates the president, and the other officers sit by seniority and seniority only. Supposing it were desired that a marine officer should sit on a court-martial where the prisoner happened to be a marine, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred you would have to make special provisions to override that seniority clause in order to enable a marine officer to sit. Another provision in the Naval Discipline Act is that no naval court-martial can be held unless two or more ships are present. The reason of that provision is that there should be at all events a certain proportion of officers serving on the court-martial who are strangers to the prisoner, so that impartiality shall be secured. Another point is that no marine officer serving afloat holds a higher rank than that of a major, and there would in most cases be so many senior officers present that a major would not be summoned to sit on the court-martial unless special provisions are made. I do not see how this matter can he

  1481
  touched upon without a very drastic alteration of the procedure of naval courts-martial and of the Naval Discipline Act, an Act which I contend has worked fairly and mercifully and for the benefit of the service. With reference to the marines engaged in South Africa, [do not think there has been the measure of injustice to them of which my hon. and gallant friend complained. The bulk of the bluejackets have been landed with their kits and arms to work the guns specially mounted by the naval officers, and it is ridiculous to suppose that a man encumbered with the equipment of the Royal Marine Artillery or Infantry is in a position to drag and work a field gun. If the equipment of the bluejackets were taken away from them and handed over to the marines in order that the marines might go to the front, I think they would feel, and justly feel, that they had been hardly dealt with.
  MR. KEARLEY (): It undoubtedly is a fact that the status of marine officers is not on an equality, as it should be, with that of naval officers. The cause of the discontent is that marine officers are not allowed to have any real position. The hon. Member who has just spoken has been a naval officer, and he (like all naval officers) has the view that a marine officer is not entitled to equality with a naval officer. He has been arguing that it would be a most difficult thing to give a marine officer the privilege—to which he should be entitled—of serving on court-martials when at sea. In 1891 this question was brought before the House by Sir John Pope Hennessey, who moved an Amendment to the Army Annual Bill.* The then First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) deliberately gave him a promise that he would amend this anomaly. He was frank enough to point out that the Naval Lords were against it, but still he was so convinced of the equity of the scheme that he decided it should be granted. It never has been granted. Why? Because the naval influence at the Board of Admiralty was too strong. I intend this year to test this thing on the Army Annual Bill, when we shall have an opportunity of seeing whether it is possible or not. It is regarded as a great grievance, and I do not believe it is impossible. It is selfishness and prejudice on the part of the naval element to ex-
  *See The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], Vol, cccli., page 1347.
  1482
  clude these men from legitimate and just privileges. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth referred to the position marine, officers were placed in when they landed with the navy for purely military purposes on shore. Is it not a fact that a marine officer, although his rank may be superior to the naval officer, is not entitled to take command in military operations or drill? That cannot be denied, and it is felt very deeply. Take the question of gunnery. All frank men will admit that the marines—both officers and men, whether they be marine artillery or marine light infantry—are excellent gunners. Many of the marine officers pass identically the same examination that gunnery lieutenants pass. When on shore they qualify hundreds of men in the gunnery examinations for service afloat; they pass these very men to get the exact qualifications they must have before they go on board ship. When the marine officer is removed from land to sea he is not even allowed to re-qualify the very men he himself passed on shore in gunnery for service afloat. I am perfectly satisfied it is purely prejudice and selfishness on the part of naval officers and authorities, and I hope this debate will elicit something from the First Lord that will tend to get that done away with. It is most injurious to the service. The marines in our Navy to-day represent one-fourth of the fighting force of the Navy, and it is one of the finest fighting bodies we have. There is an impression amongst marine officers that their representative has not the same opportunities afforded to him of making recommendations to the First Lord that are afforded to the naval branch of the service. Why should there not be a marine officer on the Board of Admiralty? I now want to consider the position of the ordinary marines, and compare their treatment with that of the bluejackets and men in the Army. Take the question of boots. You now exercise these marines on shore with the troops. You embodied some of them and sent them to the manoeuvres. You do not make them the same draft of boots as you make the Army. The soldier gets a couple of pairs of boots a year: the marine only gets one. In this statement you have conceded something; there is an additional grant for a pair of canvas shoes. Why it should resolve itself into canvas shoes I cannot understand, except they are cheaper.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,):

  1483
  The marine authorities were consulted on this subject and they declared themselves perfectly satisfied.
  MR. KEARLEY: If the marines were consulted, the verdict would be the other way. They have been asking to have the same treatment in that respect as is given to the Army. These men are also perpetually under stoppages quite different from the stoppages inflicted on the Army. They really cannot afford to meet, out of their slender pay, all the calls made upon them. Their free rations are totally inadequate. The marine on shore gets for his breakfast half a pound of bread and a pint of coffee; for his dinner he gets three-quarters of a pound of meat and no vegetables, and for supper he gets half a pound of dry bread and a pint of tea or cocoa. And yet it has been contended that the marines are fairly treated. You do not feed them properly, and you do not behave fairly to them. Take the question of gunnery again. Prior to embarkation the marine has to pass as a trained man. When he embarks he takes his place at the gun, and works side by side with the bluejackets, who have it open to them to qualify as seamen gunners, which brings with it an additional 3d. per day. The marine is debarred from that altogether. Can any reason be given for that? It wants some explanation. As it cannot be discussed, I content myself with asking a question as to the reason the negotiations with regard to the firing range at Plymouth have not been carried through. I suspect the difficulty there is a landlord's question. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us what is the real difficulty standing in the way of our having a proper firing range at Plymouth.
  MR. ARCHDALE (): We have always had the best feeling on board our ships between naval officer's and marine officers. The envy and jealousy of which the hon. Member has just spoken do not exist. I did not intend to intervene in the debate, but I could not hear my old mates abused as they have been by the hon. Member for Devonport. One of his remarks was that marines were not allowed to train as seamen gunners. The bluejacket who trains as a seaman gunner must pass a highly technical examination. It is utterly impossible for a marine to learn his drill as a marine and pass such an examination. My experience of marine
  1484
  artillerymen is that they are not to be compared with seamen gunners as artillerymen. To say they are on the same footing for ship's guns landed on shore is to leave a wrong impression. I differ entirely from the hon. Member for Devonport's opinion of the marine. The marine is drilled as a soldier, he is not drilled as a bluejacket. He is as good by land as a landsman, but he is not trained in gunnery as a bluejacket is. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth said the naval officer was absolutely ignorant of drill. I think that, if uncontradicted, would lead to a wrong impression. No man is better up in battalion drill on board ship than the gunnery lieutenant, and many of the officers sent on shore in charge of our battalions in Cape Town and Natal were ex-gunnery officers, who were as well up in drill as the marines. I do not think the marine officers believe they are kept out of serving on courts-martial by naval officers, or think they have any of the grievances which exist only in the imagination of men who go about our seaport towns.
  *SIR U. KAY - SHUTTLEWORTH (): I regret that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth should have made a comparison between two naval officers—one an unnamed but easily recognisable officer of marines, the other a naval officer whom, in response to an appeal from the First Lord, he mentioned by name. A more deplorable form of putting a strong case before the House could scarcely have been selected. But the relative status of officers of the marines and naval officers, especially lieutenants, requires attention from the Admiralty. The officers of that splendid body, the marines, are not satisfied with their position in the service. This is a source of injury to the efficiency of the service, and may at any time lead to serious trouble. The feeling of the marine officers at the present time is, I believe, stronger than it has been for some time. I cannot agree with another part of the case which was presented to the Committee by the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth, who seemed to argue that when marines were available naval officers and bluejackets should be excluded from rendering the services which we have seen them render during the present war. I think it would have been a thousand pities if the gallant naval officers and men of the

  1485
  Naval Brigade, who had rendered very distinguished service and signal help in the operations which have led to such a happy result within the last few hours, had been excluded from any share in these transactions. I welcome the use of naval contingents within reasonable limits upon such occasions, for we have seen in the Crimea, in the Indian Mutiny, and in the more recent wars, what splendid services forces composed of marines and bluejackets have been able to render. I earnestly trust that this subject will receive the careful attention of the present Board of Admiralty. The Board has recently undergone some alterations, and I have had the pleasure of serving in different capacities with the gallant naval officers who sit upon that Board. I may say that I have the greatest confidence in those officers individually, and I believe that they are men who will bring unprejudiced minds to bear upon naval questions as much as it is possible for naval officers to shake themselves free from prejudice. There is a very strong feeling among marine officers that their position, their status, and their prospects are not satisfactory. It is deplorable to think that after we bestow so much pains and spend so much money upon the training of marine officers there is such a poor career before them. We see all these unemployed officers, and, as the Member for West Belfast pointed out, there is only one general officer—an exceedingly distinguished and gallant officer—who has any post of importance. He is the one brilliant exception, and a very important exception, to the employment of such officers in high positions. I do not pretend to suggest the details for a remedy, for I think it would be very presumptuous on my part to do so. I cannot think, however, that this question can rest where it is, and I do appeal to the hon. and gallant Members in this House who have served in Her Majesty's Navy, and more particularly those who constitute the present Board of Admiralty, to pay the greatest attention to what they may regard as a sentimental grievance. I do not think we ought to estimate lightly the importance of a sentimental grievance, though this is also a practical grievance, for very often a sentimental grievance may have in one of Her Majesty's services very far-reaching and injurious consequences. I think it is in the best interests of the Navy that this subject should receive careful attention
  1486
  and that there should be no feeling of a grievance on the part of those officers, and there should be no want of consideration for their feelings. I will not say more upon this occasion. One is rather tempted to be led into detail, but I have purposely resisted the temptation, although I know that I lay myself open to the charge of proposing no specific remedy. That I would rather leave to the Board of Admiralty itself.
  COMMANDER BETHELL (): My right hon. friend knows as well as I do that the real difficulty on board ship is that there is no occupation or employment for marine officers. Some years ago it is quite true that a few Royal Marine Artillery officers were used as gunnery officers, but when scientific training came to the front the Naval officers naturally determined that it was proper that the whole of those important duties should be undertaken by those officers, and by degrees they set to work to undertake their duties, and the marine officers were thus deprived of this one occupation. That is their profound difficulty in this question, and until you can find employment for the officers of the marines on board ship you will have this perpetual difficulty, which I am afraid the Admiralty will not be able to solve. If the difficulty is as great as my hon. and gallant friend the Member for West Belfast says it is, then it is only to be solved by doing what can now well be done, and that is to remove all the marines from the ships and employ them elsewhere — which is a thing that everybody connected with the service would deplore. That is the one real solution of the difficulty. I do not know whether the Admiralty have really gone into the matter, but when they do I am quite persuaded that they will come to the same conclusion as I have done.
  MR. GOSCHEN: There are few occasions on which I feel it will be less agreeable to take part in a debate than upon the present occasion. To my mind comparisons are odious, and too many comparisons have been made in the course of the debate. I wish to bear my own testimony to the efficiency of that great body the marines. My hon. and gallant friend has asked me if I am satisfied with that efficiency. I have never lost an opportunity of saying that I fully recognise the value of that force, and I should be extremely sorry that some difficulties

  1487
  that seem to exist in the force should lead hon. Gentlemen to calmly contemplate its total reorganisation, and possibly its separation from the Navy. My hon. friend the Member for West Belfast suggests that such a contingency may arise, and that the marines may be established as a separate force; but if that does happen they will no longer be marines, and they will be no longer associated with the Navy, with its traditions, and with all the great glory of the Navy itself. Such a course may be forced on the Government at some time, but certainly not while I have the honour to represent the Navy. It may come about, but if it does it will weaken the Navy, it will weaken the marines, and will run counter to the general spirit in which the Admiralty wish people to regard the marines. My hon. friend the Member for West Belfast says that he will be content to leave this important matter to the consideration of a civilian body of six Members. I do not know whether the civilian opinion in the House or in the country generally would produce a proper Commission of Inquiry to examine into the matter. I should have no objection as a civilian to take part in the deliberations of such a body, but before I did so I should cease to be First Lord of the Admiralty. I am, however, convinced that a certain amount of professional experience besides that of civilian experts would be required to conduct such an inquiry.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I said I would refer the question of justice or injustice to any impartial body of civilians.
  MR. GOSCHEN: That question must depend largely on the experience of naval officers. People who take up a grievance always believe that justice is on their side. There is no general standard of justice. It is frequently the victory in the contest between rival sides. But that is only a suggestion of the hon. Member. I wish to say at once that, while I am most anxious to deal with the marines in a manner perfectly satisfactory to them, so long as I am First Lord of the Admiralty I will not undertake to hand over to any body of inquiry a great question of discipline affecting any part of the forces I represent. I am certain it will not do to have any such inquiry into
  1488
  a matter of discipline. My hon. and gallant friend the Member for Great Yarmouth has made two speeches with reference to the marines. If I were a marine I think I should prefer to trust my case to some less enthusiastic advocate than the hon. and gallant Member, because he allows himself to be carried away with enthusiasm.
  *SIR J. COLOMB: And knowledge.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, an exaggeration of his own knowledge.
  *SIR J. COLOMB: No, the knowledge of the service and forty years of study.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member could exaggerate the extent of his knowledge. In a speech he made the other night my hon. and gallant friend found fault with me because I alluded in my statement to the present standard of the Marines; but surely this is a matter of interest that the public would like to know. The standard of the Guards is 5 ft. 7 in., that of the Marines is 5 ft. 7½ in., so that, notwithstanding the grievances of the marines and the alleged injustice under which they suffer, I am glad to say that not only have we secured all the recruits we desired in the past year, but we have been able to raise the standard a half-inch beyond the standard of the Guards. Asregards the Royal Marine Light Infantry, we have been able to maintain the standard at 5 ft. 7 in. I hope this great corps will still be a popular corps. Though certain disadvantages have been picked out here and there, still the advantages connected with it are such that men will still be attracted to this branch of the service. The marines are as numerous, as well trained, and I believe, on the whole, as contented, to judge by the number of men who flock to the ranks, as they have been at any time.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: Is there any difficulty about marine officers?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am glad my hon. and gallant friend has alluded to that point, because it is one of the most curious incidents in the natural history of grievances that, while it is pointed out that marine officers have so few hopes and so little future, we are getting as fine (and, indeed, a, finer) set of young fellows to enter the marine service as we have ever

  1489
  done. When the examinations take place at Woolwich and Sandhurst we have great satisfaction in seeing how many officers volunteer for the marines. I will frankly say, however, it is undoubtedly a weak point in the marine service that there are so few commands for the senior officers. I feel that. The great difficulty is how to remedy it. But can we remedy it by taking over the coaling stations? That is one panacea—to revolutionise the whole system in order to find a few more commands for a certain number of marine officers. To do that it would be necessary so much to increase the force of the marines that possibly the proportion of commands to the number of officers would not be so much greater than at present. I have resisted this new principle, and shall continue to do so. It is said, Why not increase the marines by 10,000 men? But should we then be able to keep up the present high standard? I want to keep the numbers of the marines within such limits that there shall be no deterioration in the physique of the men, and that we shall be able to continue to point to the marines as one of the finest forces in the country. I have not seen the remedy, but whenever it is in the power of the Admiralty to do anything in order to secure military employment for the lieutenant-colonels, the majors, and the higher officers in the marine service, I shall look upon it as a paramount duty to further such appointments as far as I can. Whenever the services of marine officers are asked for other departments—and they are often asked for in Egypt, at the Cape, and at home—
  MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER: By the Navy?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Navy cannot employ a lieutenant-colonel. There are no employments for lieutenant-colonels of the marines beyond those which exist at our ports. The Navy has no higher employment for them, and I do not know how they can have unless by revolutionising the whole system of the corps. Things being as they are, however, certainly every effort ought to be made, if not by the Navy, yet by the Army, to secure employment for them. That is a thing I have very much at heart, and when I saw the necessity in the country generally for officers I immediately placed myself in communication with the War Office to secure immediate employ-
  1490
  ment for a number of officers of high rank in the marines in the Army. I only mention that to show that, so far from being indifferent to the claims of the marines, the Admiralty are anxious to do all they can, without breaking up the present system, to show their appreciation of the officers of the corps. I pass to a different part of the subject. From the observations that have been made in some quarters, it is thought that the marines have no representation at the Admiralty; but they have the Deputy-Adjutant-General, and if hon. Members think that this officer cannot see the First Lord when he desires they are very much mistaken. I shall always be glad to hear from any representative of the marines what their grievances are and what they desire should be done. In no department at the Admiralty is there any difficulty of direct access either to the First Lord or to the Lords of the Admiralty. I always encourage the representatives of every great body belonging to the Admiralty to be absolutely frank in their statements, and to communicate with the First Lord whenever they desire to do so. I now turn to the argument of my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Great Yarmouth. I cannot help regretting that in order to make good his case the hon. and gallant Member selected two individual cases of officers, one in the Marines and one in the Navy, in order, as it were, to run the claim of one against the other.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: I introduced the cases in order to illustrate the different kinds of training and fitness for special work. A Marino Artillery officer and a naval lieutenant might meet each other in the presence of the enemy on shore, but the one by training is superior to the other.
  MR. GOSCHEN: But how did the hon. and gallant Member select his ease? Why in regard to the Navy he took what he himself calls the weakest case he could possibly find.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: Certainly, I did.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member selected the highest case on the side of the marines and the weakest case on the side of the Navy, with the object of contrasting the training of the two men. He did not mention the name, but he has said enough to tell anyone who the man

  1491
  was. But why did the hon. Member not select a gunnery lieutenant? The comparison is not only utterly unjust, hut it is calculated to mislead the House, because the case put forward is an exceptional case. The most substantial part of my hon. friend's argument, however, is that no naval officers and no bluejackets ought to have been landed until every marine and every marine officer on board ship had been exhausted. If that course had been taken it would not only have been a terrible disappointment to everyone connected with the Navy, but to the country at large. The country has been glad to see the bluejackets on shore. Comparisons are odious, and it pains me to have to meet some of the points my hon. friend has brought forward. But there is no doubt that even on shore, whether they have or have not technical knowledge of land warfare, the bluejacket, wherever he had been, has distinguished himself, and has shown that he is a worthy man to fight on shore side by side with the soldier. I do not for a moment depreciate the value of the marines or their officers; but it is a matter of history that in the Crimean War, in the Indian Mutiny, and in Egypt the bluejacket on shore has secured the admiration of all military officers.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: Hear, hear!
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, but my hon. friend would not have landed one of them; he wanted to leave them fretting in their ships while men were going to the front, and he little understands the temper of the bluejacket when he says this, for they would have felt it with an equal degree of intensity if they had been left out, especially when the Army authorities asked for a Naval Brigade. The authorities did not ask specially for the marines for the guns; they asked for what is known in history as a Naval Brigade, bluejackets as well as marines. My hon. friend thought that the safety of the ships was jeopardised——
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: Hear, hear!
  MR. GOSCHEN: In what way? My hon. and gallant friend wisely does not reply.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: By taking the seamen out of them.
  MR. GOSCHEN: But in their particular position how were those ships jeopardised?
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: Because the ships depend for their seagoing ability upon having certain naval officers and a certain number of seamen, and no more are carried in a ship than are necessary for its sea efficiency. There are no more naval officers than are necessary, and therefore I say that if you diminish by sending on shore any proportion of these naval officers and men you are crippling the ships for their seagoing business.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. and gallant Member says by doing this we are crippling our ships for their seagoing business. At that moment we were not at war—[Opposition laughter.]—why do hon. Members opposite laugh? At that moment if we had been at war with a sea Power, and if an idea had prevailed that a hostile fleet would sweep down upon us, then the case would have been different. As a general rule, and in ordinary circumstances, I should be reluctant to see many officers and men taken out of their ships. A certain amount of pressure has been exercised in order to secure that too many men and officers should not go to the front; but the circumstances in the early stages of the war were absolutely exceptional. The hon. Member asks about the cases of the "Terrible" and the "Powerful." The "Terrible" was going out to China, and the "Powerful" was coming home. When the emergency arose it was thought to be wise to let them go to the Cape on their way. They arrived in the nick of time. The "Powerful" came from Mauritius, having there embarked half a battalion, and carried the men to Durban, where they were most welcome. Then the ship went to the Cape, and matters had become more and more serious when the "Terrible" arrived on her way to China. The military and local authorities asked that the vessels should be detained. The Admiralty were anxious for them to proceed to their stations; but in view of their large crews and the large number of guns which they carried, the local authorities regarded them as a protection, and that protection they had not yet been willing to forego.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: It is localising the Fleet.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, and the Admiralty will localise the Fleet when it is necessary. The high-level principles of the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not

  1493
  allow the Navy to lend a hand to the Army in an emergency. According to the hon. and gallant Member's scientific principles of Imperial defence, these ships would be at home or in China.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: No.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Then the hon. Member would wish them to stay where they were and wait till the marines landed had returned; Captain Lambton should not have gone to Ladysmith, and Captain Scott should not have become commandant at Durban.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: No.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member has said over and over again that the naval officers ought not to be landed until all the marines had been sent.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: The point which the right hon. Gentleman is missing is that the first question for consideration is the efficiency and readiness for sea of Her Majesty's ships.
  MR. GOSCHEN: That is the high-level doctrine, but it is not the doctrine which any Government or Admiralty would follow when the country is in need of seamen. According to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, Captain Lambton would not have taken his guns up to Ladysmith just in the nick of time.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: I said that a subaltern of marine infantry and a detachment of marine infantry were quite equal to that work, and that the ship should not have been deprived of her captain and several naval officers to do the work of a marine officer.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The captain is the officer to whom the men look for orders; it is he who puts all the "go" into the ship; it is he who is trusted by the men on shore and by the military authorities; it is he who can say, "I will take those guns up, railway or no railway, and they shall be there in time." A sub-lieutenant of marines, notwithstanding his science, could not have done that which has been done by the naval officers. The captain of the ship is the man to whom everyone looks in an emergency; he it is who knows every man in the ship—marines as well as seamen. As to the argument that the ships were rendered not efficient to go to sea, there was no probability of
  1494
  their being required to do so. I agree that the hon. and gallant Member's doctrine is good doctrine, but it is not applicable in the particular case. There was no enemy within 7,000 miles. I will frankly admit that if there were a war elsewhere, if there were hostile cruisers about, and a chance of the ships being required to act, then, strong as the desire of the officers and the bluejackets might be to assist the troops on shore, I should endeavour to put a restraining hand upon that desire, because their ships would be the proper place for them. The hon. and gallant Member has asked for a declaration of policy on my part; that is the declaration. In all cases the interests of the ships must be considered first. In the case of the South African war that consideration did not arise; and it would be a great disappointment to the Navy if they did not get some chance, on these occasions, to emulate the deeds of William Peel in the Indian Mutiny or of the Naval Brigade in the Crimea. While I make some concessions to the hon. and gallant Member, I hope the hon. and gallant Member will make some concession to the spirit and traditions of the Navy, and not insist that they should remain at port doing nothing, though they see their friends and comrades going to the front, and though they know that they can handle the guns as well as the marines, and that they would be welcomed by the troops. As to the regulations on the subject, a great deal is loft, and must be left, to the Admiral on the spot. The Admiral must decide whether marines or bluejackets, or both, and in what proportions, shall go to the front. No regulations can be issued which will bind the Admiral as to details. I would point out in answer to another question which has been put to me that as regards general instructions as to sea or shore there is this difficulty—it is half shore and half sea. Every expedition differs so much in character that it is very difficult for us to lay down any general principle to guide the Admirals in every case. I frankly say that it is a pleasure to me when some responsibility can be placed on marine officers. Although, apparently, a senior officer was afterwards appointed to the Naval Brigade, I am glad that Major Marchant was appointed to the command of the force on the Modder River, and I know that both

  1495
  bluejackets and marines heartily approve of the course that was taken in that case. My hon. and gallant friend thought that on the whole, though he did not exactly say so, it is the marine artillerists who are more scientific than the naval gunners.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: Their training is longer, more special, and more scientific.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I feel regret at having to speak at all on the subject of comparisons, but I would point out to my hon. and gallant friend that it was a naval officer who invented the gun carriage for the shore guns. According to my hon. and gallant friend, Captain Percy Scott ought to have remained on board the "Powerful" looking after men who had got nothing to do because they were not going to sea, and ought not to have interfered with the business on shore. Both portions of the service are deserving of every admiration on the part of the country; they fought well together, and there is much less jealousy either on board a man-of-war or on shore than one would think from the speeches we have heard. Moreover, hon. Members speak as if the position of the marine has gone back; but the position of the marine in the esteem of his brother officers, and on board a man-of-war, has improved. I hope that will continue, and I hope we may still be able to secure the services of such admirable young officers as I am glad to say we are getting. I have the position of the marines deeply at heart. But it is an extremely difficult matter. I do not wish to offer the Committee any promises or vague words in order to gain applause or persuade anybody from giving the vote that he would like to give, because I see difficulties in every direction. But I will continue to give my attention to the general question of the marines with pleasure, although I cannot pledge myself to any particular measure or to any such wide revolutionary change as has been sketched out by my hon. friend the Member for West Belfast.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I thought I had a case, but I am certain of it now. I really never did hear from a Minister so extraordinary a defence as the right hon. Gentleman has stated here to-night. There were very few hon. Members, in the House who listened to the speech of
  1496
  my hon. and gallant friend, but I challenge those who heard that speech to say that the right hon. Gentleman has met in any degree the statements which were made. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I must say that he has said a great deal which I feel is "playing to the gallery." The right hon. Gentleman has not made in one single particular an answer to the gravamen of the charge we brought against the Admiralty. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is responsible for the discipline of the Navy, and he does his work exceedingly well; but he asks us to go a little further, for he says that he cannot be shaken in his view about the discipline of the Navy by anything that has been said outside.
  MR. GOSCHEN: In regard to a board of civilians.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I ask the Committee to look at the facts as they are. Look at the cases we have had before us in this House over and over again. Take the case of the engineers. They have great and powerful organisations and influence outside, and the engineering trade is a great organised force, and what happens? Why, session after session we have had concessions made to them by the Admiralty. And why? Is it because the engineers ask for them? Not a bit of it. Is it because the Admiralty are anxious to do them some service? Possibly that may be the case; but does anybody in this Committee believe that if these powerful organisations had not brought pressure to bear on the Admiralty, concession after concession would have been made to the engineering branch? Take, for instance, the Medical Service in the Navy. They also have great outside influences. There are the great organisations of the medical profession, which are ably represented in this House, and which are powerfully represented in the country, with the result that year after year we have seen the status of the medical profession in the Navy improve, and their complaints have been attended to. My right hon. friend says he resents these comparisons. That is a very fair statement, no doubt, but he assumes that you start from an equality. There are some 35,000 in the competent ranks of the Navy, and 18,500 in the competent ranks of the Royal Marines, but am I to be told that the power of influencing the

  1497
  Government at the disposal of the Royal Marines and the naval branches of Her Majesty's service are equal? We know they are not. There are seventy-three admirals, thirty-five of whom are on the active list; all of them are men of high social position, and who doubtless deserve the influence they possess, but their pleadings are on behalf of the Navy. The Royal Marines are without a voice to plead for them. They have no organisations similar to those of the engineers or the medical profession, and they have no social influence such as that which is prominent in this country on behalf of the Army and on behalf of the naval branch of the service. They have no representative on the Admiralty board.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have seen the Adjutant-General of the Royal Marines and discussed matters with him.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman says he has seen this gentleman. I have seen him too. I have seen the office he sits in. I have compared the comfortable throne on which my right hon. friend sits in his handsomely furnished room at the Admiralty which is his due—and I have compared it with the dismal "two-pair-back" in Northumberland Avenue in which the Adjutant General of the Marines is compelled to transact his business. I say there is no comparing the social rank and influence of the Adjutant General and the occupants of the Admiralty. The First Lord said that when the Adjutant General comes into his office he is received with the courtesy he gives to everyone. I am sure of that, and that the representatives of the stokers, the engineers, and of the "sick bay stewards" would be received with the same courtesy; but that is a mere trifling with the subject.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Mere talk.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman says that what I am stating is mere talk; but I maintain that the First Lord is in an absolutely and totally different position from this non-combatant and only general of a force of 18,500 men—he is, it appears, the correlative and equivalent of thirty-five admirals out of seventy-three
  1498
  on the active list, and the equivalent of the multitudinous generals in the Army. It is trifling with the Committee and the public to say that that officer comes to him with the same weight of authority as is possessed by any of the high officers in the engineering or naval branches of the Navy. I have not had a reply yet to the very simple query I put, whether it is reasonable to suppose that a service can be satisfactory with the prospect held out to the Royal Marines. Take any other profession in the world— the business man, the clergyman, the soldier, the sailor, the tinker, or the tailor— the man who enters these professions has the possibility of rising to the top; but the Royal Marines is the one branch of Her Majesty's Services in which there is no chance whatever of rising to the top. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he is very charitable to the marines, and that if he can induce the Colonial Office or the War Office to offer them appointments he will give them testimonials.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I want to give the marines as full opportunity for employment as possible. Will my right hon. friend tell us whether he wants to put a lieutenant-colonel of marines as captain of a war-ship? I know there are capable men in the Royal Marines, and I have told the hon. Gentleman that I would help them, not to get rid of them, but with a wish to serve them.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's good wishes, but surely he has given his whole case away in the very statement he has made. I want him to give the Royal Marine officers the same opportunities as are offered to any other officers in Her Majesty's Service. The First Lord says that he wants to do them a good turn and that he recommends them to the Admiralty for employment on the staff in India and for posts in the colonies. I say that is an accident of the system, and is outside the system, and that you must alter the system to better the result. It is not the eternal law of nature that officers commanding 18,500 troops should be debarred from any advancement in their profession. You may allow them to become gunnery inspectors,

  1499
  as they used to be; members of the Ordnance Committee, or to take charge of naval stations abroad. But that is not my point. If you encourage a system which is radically unsound you can only have unsound fruit from that system, and I cannot admit that there is anything eternal in an unjust system. No, Sir, I am not content with the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. I feel strongly about this question, not because I am disloyal in any way to the administration of the Navy, but because I hold that it is in the interest of the Navy and of the nation that this state of things should be altered. My right hon. friend laughs at me. I do not regard his gibes about my talking of principles which I said were eternal. He said they were not eternal; but I do think there is a certain elementary concession which should be made to what is just and fair in all professions. I appeal to the common sense of the House when I say that there is no class of professional men whose members would be content with the professional outlook of the officers of the Royal Marines. No other officers in Her Majesty's Service would be content, or ought to be content, with the humiliation to which the Royal Marine officers are subjected by not being allowed to sit on a court-martial in which their own men and brother-officers are put upon their trial, and being debarred from the prizes of their own profession. I put aside all the trimmings of the right hon. Gentleman's address, and maintain that when his reply is examined in a cold, scientific light, that reply absolutely crumbles away. I do not think he considered rightly, or read carefully, what has been said by my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Great Yarmouth. It is very rarely that any expression of opinion in regard to the position and prospects of the Royal Marines is ever heard in this House; but by a series of accidents and chances I have been able to make myself familiar with what is passing in the minds of many officers in the Royal Marine force; and with that knowledge in my mind I could not forbear taking this opportunity of putting their case before the Committee. I have the greatest possible confidence in the goodwill of the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure when he said he would give a helping hand to a stray marine officer, he meant it; but if it is true that the Navy cannot employ the officers of the Royal Marines; if it is
  1500
  true that the present system excludes them from the prizes of their profession, then I maintain that you must alter that system.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES (): We must not take the hon. Member for West Belfast too seriously. I have listened to his long and interesting, but, as I thought, not very relevant speech, and as he went on I sympathised with him more and more. The First Lord has replied to him, and an admiral has interrupted him; and if that is not enough to put the hon. Member for West Belfast out of, temper, I do not know what would. His case, so far as I could understand it through the multitude of words in which it was enshrouded, was this; that a marine officer has a grievance because he cannot hope to rise to the top of his profession, which I understand to be a lieutenant-colonel sitting on a stool in a "second-floor-back" in Northumberland Avenue. But the hon. Member knows a man who has risen to the top of his profession; he has scon him; he has talked with him, and therefore it is not the fact that a marine officer cannot rise to the top of his profession. It is a mistake to suppose that people will not enter a profession unless they hope to rise to the top. Does the hon. Gentleman himself expect to become the Leader of the House? He does not; yet he stays in the House, and is an ornament to it. We are very proud of having him here, and at times we listen to his disquisitions on the eternal unfitness of things with some interest, and even with some impatience. Now, the hon. Gentleman complains that the Royal Marines were not landed in South Africa to take part in the war; but they have been landed. And of all the troops engaged in the war there are none who have so distinguished themselves as the gallant corps of Royal Marines, which at the battle of Graspan lost half their number and two-thirds of their officers in storming the hill. If there is a grievance at all, it is that the First Lord has not got the permission of Lord Methuen or Sir Redvers Buller to publish the despatch relating to the gallant action of the marines at Graspan, and which he has got in his pocket.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Oh!
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to publish it? The right hon. Gentleman

  1501
  knows that he sent that despatch to me in confidence, and if he will permit me I will send it to The Times to-morrow. That is the only grievance that the hon. Member for West Belfast has got. Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that Her Majesty's Navy is composed of ships, and that these ships must be commanded by naval officers; and if it is necessary to have marines on hoard, these are only an auxiliary force, and must he there under the naval officers. But that does not, make their position intolerable. A marine officer is most valuable, but, like every housemaid, he must be kept in his place; and I am sure that his place is not on the bridge, or on a court-martial. I do not think that any injustice is done to the marines, and there are any amount of gentlemen who go into the marine service and distinguish themselves. I do not believe there is anything like the widespread dissatisfaction which we are always hearing of from the hon. Gentleman among the marine officers at all; and I think that the First Lord has very completely, perhaps too completely, answered the case, and dwelt too much on the great storm in the teacup raised by the hon. Member. I heard the protest of my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Great Yarmouth, who stated his case with considerable ability, and I heard that case also set forth at very considerable length by the hon. Member for West Belfast, and I confess that I am unable to see any real tangible grievance which the marine officers have to complain of. I have been on battleships, and have heard as much grumbling from the naval officers as from the marine officers. I know that the marine officers get better treated at an early age than the naval officer's; they have not to say their prayers and do their washing in public. My belief is that the marine officers have fewer grievances than the naval officers; and I cannot help thinking that my hon. friend does them an ill-service in coming to this House and complaining of the ungovernable tyranny of the First Lord, and invoking in their name abstract justice, which I believe to be equally inapplicable to the marine officer as to his other professional brothers.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: I think every hon. member of the Committee will say that I am entitled to a reply. I am quite satisfied with the debate. I am sure that if anybody will take the trouble to read what has been said to-
  1502
  night on the one side and the other, he must come to the conclusion that my right hon. friend the First Lord had no case, or he would have made better points than he did in his reply. In the first place, he has put into a subordinate position my main contention, which is, that in the absence of any principle in the Admiralty regulations, the ships of Her Majesty's Navy are imperilled by the practice of sending those of their complements on shore who can be least spared from the ships, and leaving aboard those who can be best spared. I should have thought that the First Lord, who is responsible for the Navy, would have regarded that as I have regarded it, as the vital point of the question. The grievances of marine officers are not, in public importance, to be compared with that broad fact. The right hon. Gentleman has never denied that the ships were made inefficient by landing these numerous naval officers and seamen instead of marines. His case is that there was no enemy, or that if there had been an enemy, he would have been 7,000 miles off. Would he? Were there not foreign cruisers in the Indian Ocean at the time, and in the South Atlantic? And what use would Her Majesty's ship "Powerful" have been, with her captain and her combative officers locked up in Ladysmith and elsewhere, if European complications had arisen, and these foreign cruisers had swooped down on our South African ships?
  MR. GOSCHEN: There were plenty to look after her.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: If that is so I hope my right hon. friend will not object to give a Return showing the complement of the "Powerful" and "Terrible," and the rest of the squadron, and the condition it was in at different dates. I cannot understand how marine officers specially qualified for service on shore were sent on board ship and young naval officers were despatched to the front. My right hon. friend says that the naval officers and seamen could not stand being cooped up on board ship while their comrades went to the front. But have the marine officers and men not the same feelings as the naval officers and seamen? Were the marine officers and marines of the "Terrible" not cooped up in the ship while their comrades went to the front? I am absolutely and entirely satisfied with the debate, and I conside

  1503
  that my case has been made out so clearly to the Committee that I will not put the Committee to the trouble to go to a division, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Before this Vote is taken, there is one suggestion which I should like to bring to the attention of my right hon. friend, and that is as to an improvement in the condition of the stokers. It is very satisfactory to note from the statement of my right hon. friend that the increase in the Navy which he desired has practically been made, but he will not deny that there is a certain difficulty in getting a sufficient and adequate supply of stokers. The stoking branch of the Navy is one of ever increasing importance, especially by reason of the greater complexity of the Belleville boilers. My right hon. friend himself will be the first to admit that the complexity of this improved machinery requires considerably greater skill on the part of the stokers, and also greater training to make them efficient. No improvement in the position of the stokers in the Navy has been made for a very considerable time. When bluejackets after twelve years service reengage, they receive an increase in pay amounting to 2d. per day. No such increase or any corresponding advantage is given to stokers, and the suggestion that I would make, for the consideration of the Admiralty, is that stokers should have the same advantages as bluejackets. They are drilled to make hemselves useful on deck, and they are rained also to take upon themselves in time of need the duties of bluejackets, and in every respect a stoker is as efficient a unit in a ship's company as a seaman, and if the same advantages were given to both it would be an additional attraction and would be a very substantial inducement to recruits to join this particular class. There are also considerations in connection with the engineers which have not yet been mentioned, and which I think deserve the attention of the Admiralty. Formerly a chief engineer was able to retire at the age of fifty. Now a man may obtain lucrative civilian employment at fifty years of age, whereas he may be quite unable to obtain it if he leaves Her Majesty's Service at the age of fifty-five. The age of optional retirement
  1504
  was raised from fifty years to fifty-five a few years ago, when difficulties were experienced in obtaining a sufficient number of engineers. The age has since been reduced to fifty-three, and I would urge on my right hon. friend the advantage of further reducing it to fifty, because it would increase the flow of promotion and would make the service far more attractive by holding forth to engineers the prospect of optional retirement at such an age as would enable them to take lucrative civilian employment. The last point I wish to mention is in connection with Keyham College. The officer in charge of it is usually one who is about to retire, and the position is regarded in the service as one preliminary to retirement. Having regard to the importance of that training college for young engineers about to enter Her Majesty's Fleet, I do urge that the class of officer who should be placed in charge of it is not a man whose career of active service is about to close, but a man who has the best part of his career before him, who has a future to look forward to, and who would regard this important educational appointment as a stepping stone to even a more important position in Her Majesty's Service. The officer should be of the rank of post captain rather than of the rank of commander. If this reform were accepted by the Admiralty I think it would do much to inspirit the students and impart to them that energy which is so desirable, having regard to the very important positions which they are destined to fill in Her Majesty's Service. I hope these suggestions, made in a very loyal spirit to the Admiralty—suggestions which do not emanate solely from myself, but which I happen to know are regarded in the service as important—will receive the attention which, in my opinion, they rightly deserve.
  MR. FENWICK (): Before this Vote is taken, there are one or two matters which I wish to bring to the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. Last year I called attention to the grievances of the engine-room artificers. I admit of late something has been done to improve their status, by granting them the opportunity of qualifying as warrant officers, but the number is still very small, and the opportunities of promotion open to these very efficient men are very few indeed. Under the regulations, as they now stand, a man

  1505
  must be thirty-five years of age and have eleven years confirmed service before he is entitled to qualify for the post of warrant officer. I take it that it is the desire of the Admiralty to attract young men to this very important branch of the Navy. Suppose a young man enters this particular branch at the age of twenty-one, he may have thirteen years confirmed service, but not having reached thirty-five, he is unable, under the regulations, to qualify for the position of warrant officer; whereas another man, who enters the service three years later and is older, is entitled to qualify for the position of warrant officer after eleven years service. This constitutes a very serious grievance among the engine-room artificers in the service, and I think that it is a very reasonable request on their part that any man, irrespective of age, who has ten years confirmed service to his credit, should be entitled to qualify for the position of warrant officer. I hope something in this direction will be done, in order to satisfy a very intelligent part of the service. Another thing they are justly entitled to claim is that better mess accommodation should be provided for them. I had an opportunity recently of going over some of the vessels in the Navy, and certainly the room in which these men met for mess was not fit for any human being. It was an open box like a horse-box, with a coal-shute running down the centre, and when coal was being taken in, tables had to be removed and the coal shot down through the centre of the very place where the men had to take their food. It is unreasonable to expect that men in the position of engine-room artificers should have to put up with such a condition of things as that. I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty will be able to see his way to give attention to these two grievances. Again, I am sure that the engine-room artificers who are entitled to leave the service would, if inducements were offered to them, gladly continue in it. No doubt there is great difficulty in getting men of such experience and ability as those men have, and it would be well if some slight inducement was offered to them to continue in the service. I hope we shall have a reply on these matters.
  MR. KEARLEY: The statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty set forth that recruiting generally was very satisfactory, and that he expected that the total number would be probably reached
  1506
  by the end of the financial year. I would wish to know how the scheme introduced last year, whereby apprentices were entered to be specially trained for naval shipwrights, is working. Last year 150 entries were provided for, and this year it is contemplated entering 320 more. I have searched the Estimates very carefully to endeavour to find out how many of the 150 asked for last year have been secured, and I must confess, owing to the way in which the matter is set out, it is very difficult to find out the exact number. Personally, I do not think that more than twenty were secured, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give us the exact figure, and then we could form an idea of the possibility of securing 320 more. I note that some concession is to be made to that very deserving class, the naval domestics, though no details are given. I feel bound to bring up again the question of chief petty officers' pensions. This question was pressed very strongly by Lord Charles Beresford, who spoke, of course, with great authority on it, and I think an undertaking was given that the matter would be considered.
  MR. GOSCHEN: It was considered.
  MR. KEARLEY: I know when the right hon. Gentleman says he will consider a question he really means that he will consider it, and I should be glad to know what decision has been come to. I desire to associate myself with the appeal which has been made with regard to the stokers. Not only are they the worst paid, but they are the hardest worked. They do not get the concessions which seamen get on re-engaging, nor do they get the progressive pay of the seamen's branch. I think the time has come when all these matters might be considered. I should also like to know, without going into any detail, whether a decision has been come to as to giving warrant officers improved fleet rank.
  *MR. MACARTNEY: With regard to the question of the re-engagement of stokers, there is nothing in the circumstances of the case to induce the Admiralty to depart from the decision which was communicated to the House on a previous occasion. As to the desirability of the earlier retirement of engineer officers, I quite agree with my hon. friend that it might be desirable from the personal point of view of the engineer officers in order to secure for themselves positions in civil life, but at the same

  1507
  time we have to consider the absolute requirements of the service, and I am afraid it is at present impossible to hold out any hope that the Admiralty can assent to an earlier retirement, though I am sure the question is not absent from the minds of the Admiralty, and that they would be disposed to look upon it in a more favourable light if an opportunity occurred. Then with regard to the head of Key ham College I am not prepared to contradict my hon. friend in his general proposition, but I do not think it applies in all cases. I think in one or two instances officers have proceeded from Keyham College to other important positions. I can assure my hon. friend that it is the desire of the Admiralty to secure for Keyham College a naval officer in whom the utmost reliance can be placed, and who is fully qualified to carry out the duties of the position. With regard to the engine-room artificers I regret I cannot hold out any hope of the Admiralty making any alterations as to the conditions attaching to their promotion. The artificers themselves consider this to be a grievance; I suppose almost every officer in the service considers what he desires should be conceded, and is not conceded, is a grievance, but we have to consider the interests of the service, and I am unable to hold out any hope that there will be a readjustment. With regard to the mess accommodation of the engine-room artificers I do not think it is as bad as has been described by the hon. Member opposite. In some cases all ranks of officers have bad accommodation. In the newest battleships the most disagreeable accommodation is that of the flag captain, and I can assure the hon. Member that when one of Her Majesty's ships is coaling there is not a single person on board who is not inconvenienced by it. All these questions are constantly present to the Board of Admiralty, and in every possible way the convenience and comfort of every class of officers and men are attended to. With regard to the question of the apprentices, I am not able at the present moment to give the hon. Member the actual number, but I may tell him there were more candidates than vacancies, and I think I may say that the scheme has been a thorough success.
  MR. KEARLEY: I wish to know what the exact figures are.
  *MR. MACARTNEY: They are not included in this Vote.
  MR. KEARLEY: I am sorry to, interrupt the hon. Member, but they are included in the personnel of the Navy in the statement of the First Lord.
  *MR. MACARTNEY: I will give the hon. Member on Report the exact figures, which I regret I do not now recollect, but I believe that the scheme has been a success. Several important reforms have been introduced with regard to naval domestics. Their pay has been increased and they are. allowed to remain on the books of the department for three months after the ship is paid off, which gives them the advantage of almost continuous service.
  MR. KEARLEY: I should like a reply as to the warrant officers and chief petty officers. There is no time to-night, but I hope the Leader of the House will give us half an hour to-morrow.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman will finish matters in half an hour I will not resist.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I wish to speak also, and I now beg to move to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall not resist, but I hope we may get the Vote in reasonable time.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original question again proposed: —
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report progress; and ask leave to sit again"—(Mr. Gibson Bowles)—put, and agreed to.
  Committee report progress; to sit again to-morrow.

NEW BILL.
  BOILERS REGISTRATION AND INSPECTION (NO. 3).
  Bill for the Registration and Inspection of Boilers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Provand, and Mr. William Abraham, Mr. E. J. C. Morton, Mr. Caldwell, and Mr. Langley.

  BOILERS REGISTRATION AND INSPECTION (NO. 3) BILL.
  "For the Registration and Inspection of Boilers," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 107.]
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve of the Clock.